Metaphysic Storm

Mr. Carvar said - Has anybody read [American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America] & if so, was it a worthwhile purchase & a worthy addition to any Freethinker’s library?
Thanks

I said - I’ve got one more chapter to go. It’s pretty good, though it’s preaching to the choir and doesn’t present any real solutions. It’s not hard for anyone to see the problems we face from asecular madness. The author graduated from seminary at Harvard Divinity School so I assume he is a faith head. I’ve held a slight prejudice against the author because, although I despise invalid religious reasoning, I have more respect for a person who uses the complete “word of god” as their base, than I do from the religious that pick and chose “their word of god.” If one believes in gospel, it should be gospel. The god of the bible is certainly not liberal and claiming that he could be only encourages faithers to put on humanities specially designed blinders.

Insert: “We face an imminent threat. His book reminds us of the dangers liberal democratic societies face when they tolerate the intolerant.”

Call me intolerant, but I don’t have respect for those who pick only the “good” things from their faith or collective and claim that the bad elements are a perversion of it’s true form. Nor do I believe that the people who pump out the religious media are responsible for the idiots who turn it on and listen to the drivel. Like the invisible watch maker of evolution who is guided by survival pressure, the market is dependent on the demand of the “belief consumer.” Collectivism is an insult to the individual. God bless democracy and the gang wars that follow. I’ll donate it to the library next meeting.

Bill said - I have not read this book, but I’ve read a number of books quoting pre-WWII European leaders and followers who in one way or another could be described as fascists. Fascists overwhelmingly came out of the ranks of conservative Christians. Fascism reflects many Christian beliefs and attitudes. Many fascist leaders, both laity and clergy, especially hated/feared “atheism” as they defined it, which included church-state separation, political liberalism/socialism and the alleged immoralities of societies. Fascists believed Jews, more than any other gorup, were behind atheism. This fear of atheism likely was a major, if not the primary reason European Christians committed the Holocaust. The full chain of evidence/argument is too much to go into, but it’s probably safe to assume that most conservative Christians are fascists, and vice-versa. Hatred of church-state separation is a particularly strong indicator of fascist attitudes.

I said - “Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes.” - Wikipedia

I’ve always thought the Christians were behind Atheism. The Catholic church “created” me, and I don’t know many other people who despise religion or race more. But, I’ve always wondered where my skater punk culture would take me. I started my blasphemy career when I was a young pup.

Click here for my 1990 Dogma video

The truth is all religions preach principle law, community service and common good. That sounds an awful lot like what a Nation-State is. I think the Jews are held under atheist suspicion because they seem to be the only ones that are able to be bend illogic enough to be a Believer Abelief. You don’t see The Vatican, officially the “State of the Vatican City” or Iran, officially “Islamic Republic of Iran”, embracing “atheisms values” quite like the worlds shining star of Israel

Mr. Calver said - [American Fascists] Sounds interesting but if the author is covering the same territory that has been explored repeatedly, I’ll probably wait on reading it. It is frustrating to hear otherwise sane people tell me that their religious belief is good and naturally the correct interpretation of whatever scripture they claim as valid. It’s those other people who have it all wrong that give “Insert Religion Here” a bad name.

I said - If you can’t see the massi’ve problem the extreme religious right pose to equality and liberty, your just not looking or don’t care about future generations. But Hedges main premise is that the Christian right is a threat to democracy. That simply is not true because democracy is about numbers nothing more. People chose to become sheep and choice is the principle of democracy. Democracies biggest downfall is mob rule, hence the constitution.

But history has shown you can’t kill your way out of humans desire to be free. There will always be Humans who gravitate to being individuals because thats what we really are. We’re not christians, democrats, blacks, gays, upperclass, atheists, groupies, ect… WE are Human, nothing more. I (and YOU) are many things but Unique is the most import thing to remember when we speak of identity.

The last paragraph of Hedges book: “The attacks by this movement on the rights and beliefs of muslims, jew, immigrants, gays, lesbian, women, scholars, scientists, those they dismiss as “nominal christians,” and those they brand with the curse of “secular humanist” are an attack on all of us, on our values, our freedoms and ultimately our democracy. Tolerance is a virtue, but tolerance coupled with passivity is a vice.”

I just don’t understand how a Christian writer can say “our values” and include everyone. Values are irrelevant, principles are what matter. I’ve condensed where the prime “Human Values” are logically grounded: Self ownership, Equality of social and natural resources and Passive reciprocity. Everything else is just banter that gets in the way of understanding how not to be bad. They (and He) have an irrational book as their encore, logic has one line.

I think Dawkins has two extremely significant points in the God Delution. First, parents have no right branding their children with an identity other than their jeans. Second, it is not the extremists that threaten the rational world, it’s the religious moderates because they create that agar dish for the spawning of the Dali dick head, Osama bin fuck nut, Iran Mahmoud Ah, George H. itler Bush, and everyones favorite Antichrist, Ratzinger.

Bill said - First of all, even scholars have a hard time defining fascism and identifying fascists. Many Nazis apparently rejected the fascist label. I define fascism as basically a belief that might makes right, as opposed to the constitutional democratic principle that might defends right. Among other characteristics, fascism rejected all of the principles of liberal democracy developed since the 18th century.

I also see fascism as one reaction to the horrendous trauma of World War I. Although many people turned to a libertine attitude (the Roaring 20s), others turned against what they perceived as the massive failure of liberal democracies in 1914.

One characteristic of liberal democracy was church-state separation, which conservative Christians (starting the later 19th century) increasingly blamed for society’s problems, for immorality, and for freeing Jews from their traditional, Christian-imposed restrictions. Conservative Christians blamed this “atheism” for the bad things that happened. Before the war, Chr. antisemites were held in check. After the war, it seems that a lot of people blamed the war and other problems (down to the Great Depression) on God’s wrath for rejecting him via church-state separation. Since Jews benefited the most from churcuh-state separation, conservative Chrs. blamed them more and more for everything that was wrong.

Another characteristic of fascism was intense paranoia toward “outsiders.” Paranoia is also a pre-eminent Chr. attitude from the beginning of the cult, particularly toward the moral “contamination” (”infection,” “pollution,” “disease”) posed by non-Chrs. I think this paranoia and antisemitism are the two most prominent Christian characteristics in fascism. Also, fascism and Christianity were both extremely authoritarian, so conservative Christians were conditioned (or oriented) toward authoritarian forms of government.

There’s more I could point out, but I think the above is sufficient to show that Chr. was a significant factor in the rise of fascism and the attitudes behind it.

“Since Jews benefited the most from churcuh-state separation”

This just blows me away. Why would the “Jews” be the people that benefit most from temple-state separation? Israel was not created to help the victoms of the Holocaust, the State was created for the Jews. The U.S. would have been the most logical location to give a new home to the survivors. Even more logical would have been to keep them in Germany so they could integrate into local life. I know that Israel is a “Liberal Democracy“, but if it doesn’t have anything to do with Religion then it is simply a Racist State nestled in a fruit full cradle. Though, I’m sure the continuing existence of the Dome of the Rock is a high priority and is etched into Israels constitution.

Antisemitism is not fostered solely because of xenophobia, it’s generated by the collectivism and isolationism of the TrueJew™. Culture is dynamic, not an identity. Everyone’s favorite fascist Führer was smart enough to know that race is nonsense.

Adolf Hitler - “I know perfectly well that in the scientific sense there is no such thing as race. As a politician I need an idea which enables the order which has hitherto existed on a historic basis to be abolished and an entirely new order enforced and given an intellectual basis. And for this purpose the idea of race serves me well.”

The simple fact is we would not except a group of roman nose folk claiming the circumference of the Mediterranean sea because they were oppressed from worshiping Zeus for a thousand years.

Bill said - First of all, Christian perspectives are what count, not what reality is. Christians believed Jews benefited the most from church-state separation. Prior to that, Jews were not allowed to be citizens of any state, could not own property, had no legal rights - only “tolerance, a limited protection from the government, and could not hold public office. Under church-state separation, they could (in theory) become full citizens of their countries.

In reality, Chrs. often found ways to block Jewish citizenship. Nonetheless, many Jews did gain legal rights, and that angered conservative Chrs., who believed that only Christians could be good (fill in a nationality - Frenchmen, Germans, Austrians, Poles, Hungarians, etc.) Christian resistance to equal rights for Jews and Chr. outbursts of violence eventually created the Zionist movement in the late 19th century. It was Zionism that promoted the idea of Jews returning to their homeland and creating a refuge. This was long before the Christian slaughter of 6 million Jews. And they could not come to the U.S. in large numbers because the U.S. limited Jewish immigration. When a ship with some 900 Jews fleeing Nazi Germany tried to dock in Cuba in the 1930s, the U.S. government helped coerce Cuban authorities to bar it from ports, and the U.S. turned it away.

Antisemitism and racism are both strictly Christian concepts/inventions. They are based in the Chr. belief that all non-Christians serve Satan. For historical reasons, Chrs. differentiated between pagans and Jews. Pagans were exterminated. Jews got limited protection/tolerance, although it was a concept that was too often ignored in favor of coerced conversion. Racism is nothing more than Chr. anti-paganism applied to dark-skinned peoples. The original “race laws” had nothing to do with race, but were intended to keep Chrs. separate from dark-skinned pagans and allowed the enslavement of pagans because they were pagans. When the concept of race was developed in the later 18th century, Chrs. seized upon it to “explain” why dark-skinned pagans were so hard to convert. The laws and anti-pagan prejudice were already deeply entrenched by then.

“Anti-Semitism and racism are both strictly Christian concepts/inventions.”

That is the biggest load of shit I’ve ever heard. I’m not trying to defend Christianity because I despise it as much as the other supernatural beliefs but really, Racism = Christianity? There’s racism in Africa which isn’t about any belief other than subspecies, whether or not they had the technical term, “breed” has been in the consciousness of humankind for millennia’s. Dark or light gums cause some Africans to chop humanity into races. The term anti-semite gets used far to much. It’s just easier to see with Jews because the Jews most dominate cause for cohesion is oppression. Those damn ancient Egyptian slave mongers are to blame for giving birth to the Jew. The fact is anti-isolationists can be found throughout the world.

Take high school for instance. I was a skater. The jocks automatically hated me because they thought I had the mindset of the other skaters, which was one of superiority, oppression and isolation. I however judge people by their actions not by their looks or interests. When I approached a jock or prep and they saw that I didn’t think differently of them, they lost their prejudiced hate of me.

I was wrong about Israel. After researching the Online Jewish library, I discovered that they don’t have a constitution. The main arguments put forward against a constitution was headed by Zionist David Ben-Gurion and the religious parties. However they do have this beauty:

Protection of Holy Places Law 1967:
The Holy Places shall be protected from desecration and any other violation and from anything likely to violate the freedom of access of the members of the different religions to the places sacred to them or their feelings with regard to those places. Whosoever desecrates or otherwise violates a Holy Place shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of seven years.

So the Jews are bound by law to protect the Rock of the Dome. Who would have guessed? Since I “am” Jewish due to my mothers “blood”, I suppose I should get my free ticket to Israel and open an Olive Garden. Does anyone hear tax exempt status??? I’ve been a servant of the Flying Spaghetti Monster for years.

The reason I suggested “corporatism” rather than “fascism” is that you need to separate goals from methods. Religion, the police state, homophobia, racism, scapegoating, suppression of trade unions, etc. are all just tools, not goals.

Paul Krugman puts it well in his column today in the NYT: “The people who run the G.O.P. are concerned, above all, with making America safe for the rich. Their ultimate goal, as Grover Norquist once put it, is to get America back to the way it was “up until Teddy Roosevelt, when the socialists took over,” getting rid of “the income tax, the death tax, regulation, all that.’”
michael

I quite agree that for some, mainly the leaders, fascism is about helping corporations and the wealthy. But for the vast unwashed masses of fascism, paranoid xenophobia, a swaggering militancy and militarism (most fascists are cowardly bullies who like the idea of beating up the weak), a shallow obsession with symbols and rituals (that’s why fascists in this country like pledging allegiance to the flag and shouting nonsensical but emotionally satisfying slogans, rather than studying the Constitution and engaging in reasoned debate), and authoritarian systems that remove much of the thinking and doubts about daily life (religions, ideologies, fascist governments).
Bill

I’m starting to think that the concept of Nation-State is synonymous with Fascism. Whereas City-State has a logical bases for collective identity, common good and community, Nation-State is about Capitol rights and the army that fights to own them. The Nationalist identity and devotion is almost essential for the Konk from Key West to identify with the Rocky ski bum for anything more than the bills they use and the stars they swear to. The Human element transcends all borders, cultures and nationalities.

The power of Religious and/or Secular Nation-State identity is quite useful in getting people in the middle of nowhere USA to be frightened of the evil terrorists kid napping their child. “US and them” is essential, because if we know they are us, we would realize we’re doomed to fail because we fight ourselves.

Bill said - You need to do some research. The historical documentation is clear that Western racism is specifically Christian in origin. Before the concept of “race” was developed, Christians already had instituted legal discrimination against dark-skinned peoples - particularly Africans - because they were pagans. Yet initially, when black slaves were first brought to the English colonies, they were treated like indentured servants and freed after 7 years. They were not permanent slaves, and there are records of “black-white” marriages and sex (to use modern terminology). The legal records show that Africans’ pagan status and the threat of ‘contaminating’ Chrs. is what alarmed people.

“Race” had nothing to do with racial discrimination, in its original form. “Race” was an ex post facto “explanation” for why dark-skinned pagans were so “inferior” that they refused to convert. (Yes, I do recognize that non-Christians can be racists; the Japanese are an example. But as far as Western society is considered, Christianity is the sole source of racism. Show me any racist - as opposed to ethnocentric (see below) materials from before the 18th century and you’ll have the beginnings of a general argument, not the nonsense you’ve spouted so far.)

By arguing from blatant ignorance, you’ve simply, publicly shown that you’re the one full of shit, not me.

You also need to recognize the difference between ethnic prejudice and racism. In ethnocentric or tribal cultures, there’s an attitude of superiority to non-members. But in most societies, non-members can become members in one fashion or another. The Greeks were prejudiced against ‘barbarians” because they did not wear Greek clothes, follow Greek customs or, most importantly, speak Greek. Adopting Greek culture could make one a Greek, as far as Greeks were concerned.

Likewise, most tribal societies have ways of adopting outsiders into the tribe, such as through marriage or adoption rituals. In contrast, racism assumes that members of another “race” are so inferior because of their biology that they can never change. That’s what makes racism so virulent and difficult to eradicate. It’s not like the prejudice against Italians or the Irish, which could fade away. A genuine racist simply cannot shake off the belief in the biological inferiority of other “races.”

A key change in Christianity was the development in the 19th century of racial antisemitism (RSA), which was inherently opposed to theological antisemitism (TA). TA proponents argued that Jews could become Chrs. through conversion. Baptism was supposed to remove Jews’ immoral nature and purify them. RA, however, argued that nothing could change a Jew or make him/her into a moral, normal human being. In general, RA was a Protestant position; TA was a Catholic position. However, there were TA Protestants and RA Catholics (Hitler is the most prominent example). When people try to claim that Nazis were anti-Chr., they’re usually misled by the hostility between the RA Nazis and TA Protestants. But the majority of German Protestants supported the Nazis and so supported RA. TA Protestants were a minority. When Pius XI signed the concordat with Hitler, he basically was saying that atheism (particularly Communism) scared him more than RA, so he could live with RA proponents as long as they were Christians and anti-atheism.

“By arguing from blatant ignorance, you’ve simply, publicly shown that you’re the one full of shit, not me.” - Bill

Ad homonyms have no effect on me. I attacked your argument, not you. ‘That is the biggest load of shit I’ve ever heard.’

Bill said - I don’t find Jesuitical hair-splitting persuasive.

What constitutes a definition of fascism and fascist governments is a highly disputed subject that has proved complicated and contentious. Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have engaged in long and furious debates concerning the exact nature of fascism and its core tenets. - Wikipedia

Bill said - But as far as Western society is considered, Christianity is the sole source of racism.

That simply isn’t even close to being true: “Minority racism or inter-minority racism is sometimes considered controversial because of theories of power in society. Prejudiced thinking among and between minority groups does occur, for example conflicts between blacks and Korean Americans (notably in the 1992 Los Angeles Riots) or between blacks and Jews (such as the riots in Crown Heights in 1991) in various urban environments, new immigrant groups (such as Latinos) or towards whites.”

“There has been a long running racial tension between African Americans and Mexican Americans. There have been several significant riots in California prisons where Mexican American inmates and African Americans have targeted each other particularly, based on racial reasons. There have been reports of racially motivated attacks against African Americans who have moved into neighborhoods occupied mostly by Mexican Americans, and vice versa. There had also been cases in the late 1920’s California in which Filipino immigrants have been victimized for moving into a predominantly white neighborhood, or for working in an overwhelmingly white workplace. Recently there has also been an increase in racial violence between whites and Hispanic immigrants and between African immigrants and American blacks.” - Wikipedia

Steve - I am puzzled (and somewhat annoyed) by your communications. Perhaps you might help me understand a bit more.

Your words sound vehement and full of certitude but your support for your rather unclear points seems scattered all over the place.

Part of the confusion in my mind has to do with occasional malapropisms or mispellings: E.g., “millennia’s” (vs “millennia” is already plural; “millennia’s” is a possessive form and therefore makes no sense); “breed” (is apparently meant to rebut some use by Bill but I don’t see it used or implied; so the context is lost); “far to much” (vs far too much); “the Jews most dominate cause for cohesion is oppression” (vs you intend the possessive “Jew’s”; You apparently intend “dominant” rather than “dominate), etc.

I wonder if you are using a voice processor without proofreading and/or are not spell-checking your content.

You also seem to be trying to say too much in one paragraph:

“load of shit”…”despise…supernatural beliefs”…”dark or light gums”…”damn Egyptian slave mongers are to blame for…the Jew”…”I was a skater..the jocks hated me”…”mindset of …other skaters”…”a jock or prep…I didn’t think differently of them”; “I ‘am’ Jewish”…”I suppose I should get my free ticket to Israel”, etc.

There might be valuable content or insight here but it’s a furious stream-of-consciousness that produces in this reader a net interpretation of confusion; and/or perhaps English is a second language. It’s too full of angst to be dealt with in a satisfying or even an intelligible way.

I’m suggesting that you pick just one or two points you wish to treat and organize and clarify your language. If you want to express a rage or personal experience, you might just announce this and then simply describe that.

I know. You didn’t ask for this interpretation. It’s just my impression and some feedback that might be helpful.

I am not well read; hypomanic, dyslexic, ENTP, and if I told you my IQ you wouldn’t believe me. I was born into a world of monkeys holding butcher knives, on ALL sides, and I feel a wee bit nervous about the next 20 years. The only thing that gives me comfort is the knowledge that I’ve lived an incredibly rich life on a paupers wage and I don’t have a child.

The Topica mass email format of communication frustrates me. There are two main reasons for this. First, it is completely user unfriendly. For a coherent daily conversation to occur between a dozen people it would require the creation of over 36 emails, therefore it discourages use. Second, it seems as though it is not free or democratic. I may be wrong, but it seems as though there is a moderation process happening. I wrote two things critical of the Humanists, the first was never published and the second was suspiciously delayed in it’s appearance. I have to test the steel.

A simple NOSHA blog would liberate everyone who is interested in non-religious ethical positions based in New Orleans, LA. I offered my service to maintain the blog and help members who didn’t know how to become a publisher. But with the paranoia “nice” atheists understandably have with new members, I simply made a blog and waited for interest. It was a depressing No Show. Democracy don’t mean shit if no one goes to the polls. I was told by HarryG that our group could barely check their email, lest post a blog comment, or g0d forbid, sign up to be an author.

That brings me to my final point. If our goal is to help the religious open their eyes and step into reality, the last thing we want to do is tell them they’re stupid. It’s easy to do because atheists tend to be more educated and thus statistically of a higher “”"”mentality”"”" than the religious. I however don’t judge people based on their IQ. I know that the idiot has just as much to offer me as the Einsteinium. What I’m interested in is creating a world were our children’s children can look back and say thanks for all the delicious fish. As for me and my life, I look back and want to kill myself. I hope I coherently answered your question.

Michael said - [”If our goal is to help the religious open their eyes and step into reality, the last thing we want to do is tell them they’re stupid.”]

Speaking only for myself, I do not consider myself an atheistic evangelist. I do not think I’m going to convince the religious to abandon their illusions. Read some Eugene O’Niell plays. Man lives on illusion. The truth kills.

My objective is to prevent the religious from forcing their delusions on others, especially using the force of law. I was a political science major. I wanted to learn to use the levers and buttons of government to produce a better society. Later, I learned that using the law was also a good tool.

Logical argument is a very powerful tool, but not the only tool I used when I lobby. Ridicule is only useful when a majority agree with your position (which means you’ve won already), and should be reserved for humor only if you are trying to build a winning majority. People do not react well to mean-spirited ridicule.

I enjoy this forum, because I can call opponents “stupid”, because I’m among the like minded. I do not call people stupid in negotiations.

A constitution can just as easily be written or amended by Theists, as ours was created by the beloved Deists. So you ether want to be The team pulling the levers, which I think is a tenet of Fascism or you want to help the majority become fair and rational so democracy can function. You did after all finish your lever/button sentence with, “to produce a better society.”

Ignorance kills, The Truth will set US free.

This is nosHa. Humanism is the belief in rational ethics (bible free), democracy (lever free), personal freedom/ responsibility (blame free), supports human rights and the value of imagination. I came to nosHa to find like minded people and advance the cause of Ethical Atheism. If all nosha is, is a place to make jokes about Christians (which doesn’t require any imagination) or a place to pat ourselves on the back and declare how great we are, I’ll take my talent else were.

Maybe it’s just me but I make many mistakes. I encourage people to point out when what I say is stupid, as long as it’s supported by logic and reason. But, “because I can call opponents ’stupid’ “, is an Ad homonym were ever it’s used. And we all know that adhomo sapienyms are full of shit.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS