Atheism and The U.S. Go Hand-in-Hand

I've come across many conservative atheists Chelsea. I value their contributions even though they usually differ from my own.

I know plenty of "conservative" atheists as well -- but it seems that some people don't realize they exist (according to some of the comments made on other atheism-related articles)

True true.

I don't see why they wouldn't exist, either. You can have certain beliefs that are not necessarily based on the bible or believed due to any God driven commandment. Some conservative beliefs may simply be political, or with ideas such as drugs, or drunk driving - based on common sense and/or health concerns.

In my experience "fiscal conservatives" are far more likely to include atheists than "social conservatives", as far as sub-groups go.

I hope the Athiest Sentiment spreads to Kansas. A new ban on Sharia law was enacted in Kansas last week. It seems to me that the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and the 1963 Supreme Court ruling favoring Madeline Murry O'Hair pretty much covers everything a law against Sharia law would cover. All Kansas would have to do is follow and enforce federal laws concerning religion that we already have.

yup :|

But what do you girls mean by that? That the people can't celebrate their religions within our city? Why? That's silly.
The Constitution should not interfere with the government should not interfere in church. They can't have one religion that is upheld as the state religion. But to allow the people of all beliefs freely celebrate their belief in town shows brotherly love.

Religion in the theory of cause and existence. I do consider atheism a religion. I'm not against you guys having decorations or signs to celebrate. I think that is your right too. Even have a parade :)

I live in Kansas too Chelsea. Edwardsville which is a small town attached to the SW end of KC KS.

Glad to meet you.

Oops. I just saw on your profile page you live in LasVegas. Guess we aren't neighbors :)

I'm the one who lives in Kansas, Glome. And there's not a problem with celebrating your religion within your city. There is a problem with celebrating your religion at school, or in court, or anywhere else that is guarenteed to be neutral. If you do not believe me, please refer to Madeline Murry O'Hair's lawsuit against the United States (Baltimore, Maryland) in 1963, concering prayer and other religious expression in school. She did not want any religion expressed at school to influence her children, and SHE WON. It's the law. So it isn't "us girls" telling you this, it's your Supreme Court.

Religion is not the theory of cause and existance. It is the opiate of the people.

Yeah, I don't live in KS


and atheism isn't a religion...you're more than entitled to "consider" it one...but you would be doing so erroneously. There are actual atheistic religions, but atheism in and of itself is not a religion.

No atheist is equal.

How does an proclaimed atheist know what is conservative? What does an proclaimed atheist use to measure what is conservative and what is not? From whence do you get your standard?

1. Please, please use an "a" before words with consonants and "an" in front of words that begin with vowels. It's really hard to read and take anyone seriously when they can't even piece together a grammatical sentence. It doesn't read well.

2. Atheism is simply "not believing in god or gods" -- being a conservative isn't a religion.. although many conservatives behave as though it is.


So basically, your question makes no sense. You're asking how an atheist can be a conservative when the two are not mutually exclusive to one another. Your question might as well have been asking:

"How can a mechanic know how to make a sandwich?"

The question is nonsensical.

0_o

astounding the reasoning skills of some, isn't it?

Someone who is conservative has a moral standard. A liberal has a standard which is less than a conservative. Hence, where would a proclaimed atheist attain their sense of a "moral" standard? How would they know what is conservative?

A mechanic knows the difference between a good and a bad sandwich. He knows the difference between a 5 dollar sandwich and a ten dollar sandwich. Where does he get his sense of quality and or excellence?

Gary -- are you saying that someone has to believe in a god to have morals?


If so, you're wrong. Completely wrong.

So since your question is completely flawed on any logical level, why should it be answered? "A mechanic knows between a good and bad sandwich,blah blah blah -- where does he get his sense of quality and or excellence"

HIS TASTE BUDS. Which are physically provided to him thanks to evolution and biological science. Not because someone else told him the sandwich is good or bad. Get it? See how easy that was? You couldn't even properly prove your own fallacy with the sandwich metaphor. 0_o

Gary, your assumption that a liberal doesn't have the same "high moral standards" as a conservative is ridiculous and insulting. As a liberal agnostic atheist, I was born and raised in a very religious, very conservative home. Hence, I have an intimate knowledge of what is and what isn't conservatism.

I reject it, because, in my opinion, it does not adhere to MY OWN moral standards.

I didn't get to that yet, but yes, his logic is flawed on top of insinuating that liberals don't have moral standards as well as atheists. Seems like a really "holier than thou" attitude to have -- a good reason why MY moral standards find it repulsive.

Well, look who's being a grammar Nazi now. :) (That's a fairly obvious editing error--the word proclaimed was inserted between an and atheist and no adjustment was made.)

How about it's and its (hint: check your response to Simon).

There are of course many conservative atheists. Ayn Rand, one of the darlings of modern conservatives, was a Christopher Hitchens-style anti-theist. She wasn't just an atheist--she hated the idea of religion.

Morals come from God. In your denial of God, I am asking where do you get your morals? If an atheist is conservative, how do they know what is liberal? Where do you get your measurement? Everyone has a sense of morals, its the denial of where they come from that is the issue.

Since the mechanic has been given some physical abilities, how does he know what is good or bad based on the senses that are given to him. How is he able to choose his next lunch? How is he able to determine the good and the bad? Where does he get his ability based on the senses he has to make a better choice?

@ gary g... my moral standards far exceed those of most conservatives I know. On Gather, I've seen that most conservatives' moral standards here are pretty much non-existent.

"Morals come from "God." -- No they don't. They come from societal influence and upbringing as well as personal nature. Nothing comes from "god." Everything you know, ever behavior that you learned came from being "taught" by those around you and by written words. YOUR morals,whatever they may be, came the same way as anyone else's morals. They came from societal upbringing and influence. Had nobody ever "taught" you about God, you'd not know he existed, but you would still be part of a society of varying standards by which you'd develop your morals. God has nothing to do with it ;)

However, it's apparent that some people tend to insist on believing that this imaginary being is the sole delegate of morals and common sense. Meanwhile they place several people down on levels lower than they in doing so, while being flawed in their assumptions.



;)

I'm abandoning the mechanic metaphor since you've so poorly misunderstood it and continue to dig yourself deeper into your own fallacy that you don't even notice it, oblivious.

My morals don't come from a mythological character invented five thousand years ago to explain why life in the desert was a murderously hard way to live and die. My morals come from a desire to be a decent human being and help whoever I can, whenever I can.

Maybe some people are just so inherently bad that they truly believe that they NEED some kind of god and belief in punishment in order to NOT be criminally bad or immoral.

That wouldn't be me, or any atheists that I know.

(if the only reason someone comments is to be snide and not discuss the topic, their comment will simply be removed)

Aniko -- I see that i put an apostrophe there that didn't belong there.


But I only did it once ;) If it's once it's a mistake.. more than once is a habit ;)

I'm interested in the only conservatives are moral, and morals come from God aspect described. Firstly, what is a conservative? Is it the "conservative" as relates to "liberal" that is part of the political spectrum worldwide, or is it the Rush Limbaugh, Fox News version?

What evidence is there that either sort of conservative, who "believes" in God, has any more moral righteousness than an atheist?

Seems to me the last president we had made a big production of his "Christian faith," was elected by a Christian conservative base that supported him in the invasion of a sovereign country that wasn't a threat to us, causing death ("Thou shalt not kill") and widespread suffering. They also supported him in tax cuts that gave billions of dollars to the wealthiest of Americans while millions of other Americans fell below the poverty line. Based on the Jesus scenario, it doesn't seem like God would be too cool with that as a moral virtue. Otherwise, it seems like "conservatives" believe in personal responsibility rather than helping our "brother" who needs help. I just don't see that "conservatives" have the moral rectitude market cornered.

Religion is for people that don't already have morals naturally. If gives them a diefining of what can get you to heaven and what will put you in hell. Otherwise, they are clueless.

I know alot of christians whom have less morals than an atheist!

That's really not all that hard to do.

Because I normally vote democrat, people in Norhteast Kansas tell my children, at school, every day that their parents have no morals. Yet, my husband and I are the only parents of children at the school who do not allow their children to drink, drive without licsences, or replicate themselves! Does putting that "Christian" or "Republican" stamp on unlawful or illicit behaviors actually change the nature of the behavior?

Juli -- no, it doesn't. :|

It's a shame how blatant their hypocrisy is though, isn't it?

Yes. And "shame" is a very good word for it, as that's what some of them should feel. Especially when politicians who are grown men and women make racist comments and make nasty comments about other cultures that would get a child making the same statements kicked out of school!

I'm a political leftist who's a Christian and I believe that atheists come from God.

The last time I connected "leftist" and "Christian" in a sentence someone questioned whether I was actually Christian--I didn't fit a convenient stereotype. But I don't remember whether it was a leftist atheist or a conservative Christian who said that.

Don't feel bad, Dave. I was told, back when I went to a church in Maryalnd called Damascus Christian Community, that I was not actually a Christian because I had symptoms of celiac disease (adverse reaction to wheat) and that if I was honest and loved God, I wouldn't get sick from eating pasta! Really.........there's absolutely no sense in the rationale of a lot of the Christianity that's out there to be dabbled in!

Looking back on it, I was not a Christian because I was not able to bend my perspective into the realm of unreality enough to make thise people happy, It had nothing to do with pasta!

And who's conforming to what, here! Sorry to hear that those people were so misguided and ungenerous, juli.

"Someone who is conservative has a moral standard. A liberal has a standard which is less than a conservative."

That explains it. Anyone who's not a conservative is, by definition, a moral degenerate. Thanks. I've always been confused on that one.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/october172007/repub_scandals_10_17_07.php

conservative morals..heh

Interesting. A political movement based purely on a negative. Well, I guess its been done before. Course its much easier to unite people based one what they dont believe in, than on what they do. Good luck.

someone didn't read the article...or it's source.


lol

Actually I did. Here is a quote from the source that makes my point.

“It is hard to get atheists to agree on anything but their atheism,” she said. “We are mostly liberals, I will grant you that, but once you veer off into anything besides (church and state) separation issues, most atheists will argue.”

how does that quote make a point that there is a "political movement based purely on a negative" ??

Because I see that atheists are pulling together for the US constitution -- that's far from a "negative"

I am a theist who also supports the US constitution, including the separation of Chuch and State, a provision which was strongly supported by theists at the time. So what else can atheists claim as a positive position?

I am a theist who also supports the US constitution, including the separation of Chuch and State, a provision which was strongly supported by theists at the time.

Good for you, then you shouldn't have a problem with atheists pulling together for the same sentiment. ;)

I think if you read about the coalition for secular america's literature, you'll find that the main point is more than obvious "to maintain a secular america."

Nuff said.

A political movement based purely on a negative.

You sure you're not talking about the TEA Party? Mebbe today's conservative movement in general? Republicans as a group?

i have no problem with atheists at all. I was one for most of my life, and I didnt harm anyone. Maintaining a secular America, though is really the same thing as supporting the Church State separation. America is secular in law, but not in culture. The religious culture in America is fairly strong, and I hope the goal is not to impinge on it. That would also be a violation of the Constitution, since freedom of religion is guaranteed.

Right, Simon. That's why the particular groups umbrella'd by the coalition aren't for infringing others' rights.

now some people might think removing a prayer from the walls of a public school is infringing on their rights, but they'd be wrong.... :)

I'd tend to agree with Chuck, if there is a negative working in the political system now it is the republicans who can't seem to figure out what all those words in the constitution are there for. I'd like to hear Simon explain exactly what it is about atheism that makes it a negative in his opinion. There are several things atheists can agree on besides the issue of church and state, indoctrination of children, sexual abuses by religion, the teaching of evolution and leaving creationism out of science class, equal rights for all Americans, using religion as a reason to hinder progress in things like stem cell research. I don't think most atheists have a vision of eradicating religion from every part of our culture. I would like to see people keep what they call a 'personal belief' just that instead of waving it around and then complaining when people say something about it.

As a boy with reared in the Baptist and Nazarene churches, I learned that belief was their substitute for thinking, and the beliefs they held were not reconcilable with the world I observed. By the time I was 16, I had been thru salvation, sanctification and obfuscation. It became clear to me that the latter was the ultimate result of the former two, and I belief quit working for me.

"That's why the particular groups umbrella'd by the coalition aren't for infringing others' rights."

Yes they are, they are infringing on the rights of the religious to practice their religion as they see fit.
The goals of the Secular Humanist's Progressive's and Atheists is to drive religion from public view.


"The legal wranglings over the cross went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in 2010 that it is not an unconstitutional instance of the government endorsing religion."

Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/watchwomanonthewall/2012/04/momentous-victory-cross-stays-at-mojave-vets-memorial-aclu-looses.html#ixzz1uq6aQUoe

We already know the founders intermixed faith and government all the time! What you all interpret what the freedom of religion means has nothing to do with what the founder intended, and the intent of the founders is crucial in applying the Constitution to our society today.

Then I guess that you could say the same regarding the right to bear arms. Certainly, the weapons of the past are not comparable to today's product AND the Constitution said that gun rights belonged for the protection provided by a militia. Now you have the NRA wanting to sell guns in convenience stores with proof of address as the application. If that isn't misreading the Constituion, I don't know what is.

Yes they are, they are infringing on the rights of the religious to practice their religion as they see fit.

If "as you see fit" means making religion a part of government or education, or insisting on the right to publicly humiliate, ridicule, and generally harass LGBT persons without retaliation or censure... then you are ABSO-FREAKIN'-LUTELY correct. "As you see fit" doesn't cut it under those circumstances.

And Frank makes a pretty good point... you can't have it both ways. The constitution surely never envisioned today's semi-automatic weapons of short range mass death dealing.

Reap Paden

You asked why I think atheism is a negative. I think its a negative because it is defined as a lack of belief in God. As for all the things you mention, I agree with everyone of them as an evangelical Christian. And I am not alone, by any means. Maybe atheists could be for something like not lumping everyone together in neat categories. I also know a few atheists (even a couple on this site) who might not agree with your complete agenda. In other words, being against teaching creationism in science class, being against indoctrination of children and for human rights, to me, has nothing to do with atheism.

Atheism is a negative only if you believe that belief in a god is important, Simon, and I don't. In fact, my non-belief is irrelevant to me for the most part. I don't usually give it a thought unless I'm on Gather and people put up posts like this one. Then I remember and drop by when I see one. In short, Atheism is not a substitute religion for me.

Chuckels,
Clever almost never wins an argument and your latest comment is no exception...as usual.
And as far as the second amendment goes, Jefferson stated that that right existed for the expressed reason to protect the citizenry from a tyrannical government, taking that into consideration the "vision" of the Constitution is not the advancement of weaponry but on protection of the citizenry.

Clever almost never wins an argument --

as opposed to the opposite?? 0_o

Chelsea.
Stupid with facts wins out over clever alone every time.
That's the problem with so many progressives, most of the time they don't have any facts but can't resist commenting....even if they aren't really saying a thing.

Stupid with facts wins out over clever alone every time.

lol

Stupid with opinions you insist are facts... not so much

Facts is what they is Chuckles,
That is why this lay person can out debate you, a "scientist" and the self declared smartest man on Gather when it comes to global warming.

Because I have facts and you have a belief in the consensus.

Chuck,
Im glad to see you agree with me. If atheism is a negative only if you think its important, that clearly means that atheism is a negative for the members and leaders of the new Atheist movements that Chelsea is talking about, since they obviously think that atheism is important, or they wouldnt have started these movements. Sheeesh, Chuck, we are agreeing on a lot lately. People may talk.

It may be time for you two to get a room. On second thought, do it right here. I like it.

Reap Paden said: "There are several things atheists can agree on besides the issue of church and state, indoctrination of children, sexual abuses by religion, the teaching of evolution and leaving creationism out of science class, equal rights for all Americans, using religion as a reason to hinder progress in things like stem cell research."

Sy then said, "As for all the things you mention, I agree with everyone of them..."

And I agree with all of those things, Reap, and I'm Christian. It must be something besides atheism that makes them "things to agree on." It may be time to stop and think about the domain you imagine you are inhabiting.

@Simon... I'm SO ashamed.

Arianna Huffington, who created the Huffington Post, is a proponent of the New Age philosophy. Their goal is to pit the major religions to fight and destroy each other, and then bring about a new world religion and the emergence of the antichrist. The New Age movement has infiltrated nearly every aspect of modern society, as Constance Cumbey has documented in her 'The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow.' The end goal is world government and tyranny. Remember -- our rights come from God. So if you don't believe in God, what do you have? When man gives himself the power of God, that's when all kinds of evils commence. I don't have any problem with atheists as long as they don't interfere with my rights. But the evidence clearly shows that they do want to interfere with our rights! And thus humanism becomes more like inhumanism!!

lmfao...and if you microwave US currency, the microchips that the government uses to control and monitor your thoughts explode!

lmao graphic

But the evidence clearly shows that they do want to interfere with our rights!

In what way, V.B.? Give me three examples of how we do that. Hell, I'll settle for one.

"we" as a group, Chuck? That would be difficult. The examples on Gather that I can think of where individuals self-described as atheist or agnostic on Gather may support "interference" usually fall along the edge of "establishment" questions. For example, I've seen skirmishes having to do with voluntary prayer in public schools. Ought a student be permitted to incorporate a prayer in a graduation speech at a school? Ought students be permitted to form their own prayer group at school, at the same time others can form chess groups or debating societies? Ought a public square be open to religious displays if it is open to such displays for any religious group who's interested? Those kinds of questions.

Well, THIS one went sideways in a hurry.

Why does everyone have such a problem with the idea of atheism? Why is failure to believe in Cinderella/Santa Claus/Jesus/Zoroastor/The Great Pumkin/The Easter Bunny such a big deal?

"I'm too well read and informed..." I don't care WHERE you're from, that's funny stuff right there.

Why do you support Zionism?

"I'm too well read and informed..." I don't care WHERE you're from, that's funny stuff right there.

ROFLMFAO

I don't think 1 book counts.

@ Robert A.
A dictionary describes the difference of conservative and liberal in the aspect of keeping and not keeping traditional values. Everyone has a sense of morality because it comes from God. The Bible says that God is holy and He calls us to holiness. Hence, our morality comes from God whether people believe in Him or not. All persons either atheist or believers have morality. As observed in our culture, many identify them selves as a conservative or a liberal. As an example: A conservative will generally hold to a traditional marriage (husband and wife). In contrast a liberal will be ok with a same sex marriage.

You might want to pick up a cultural anthropology book and sociology texts. You're dead wrong.

There is this thing called willful ignorance, and it's sad when people older 10-years old display it so adamantly. Did you not go to college or do they let just anyone go on missions to indoctrinate other nations' children?

I agree willful ignorance is sad. Its called suppressing the truth.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools..." Romans 1:18–23

Yes, I realize that is the only book you've ever been allowed to read in what ever compound it is you came from but you might want to start here if you want to experience what actual knowledge is about life and culture outside of your bubble:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_anthropology

Yes, I realize it's wiki, but considering you're only just now graduating from the holy babble, let's start with easy to chew bites.

I think you're only showing how weak and shallow your religion is by feeling the need to assume that those who don't share in your mythology have "no moral standards." It's a rather arrogant POV, something "satan" would be in encouragement of more than your deity ;)

and frankly, I would be ashamed of myself for indoctrinating the children of other people if I didn't even have the common decency to learn about cultural anthropology. that's a fundamental lack of respect for other cultures.. how very christian...

"resistance is futile..assimilate..."

Let's look at the "morals" of the bible:

God condones rape and child murder: (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB))(Judges 5:30 NAB)

God condones selling children as sex slaves: Exodus 21:7-11 NLT

Bible condones slavery in general: http://www.openbible.info/topics/slavery



I think on behalf of just about any other atheist who is GOOD PERSON, I would just like to say that I am well aware of your so called "moral standards" as I have read that filthy book the bible. And I would like nothing to do with that twisted idea of "moral standard." If that is a moral standard I'd say someone has their priorities more than mixed up.

Chelsea, Have I told you lately that I love you?

lol aww, Frank :P

I would not want to be part of an organized atheist movement. To me it is our natural state.

It is your initial state. The path to discovery is another question.

Not mine.

The path may be "natural." Therefore inescapable.

I have escaped. That path seemed pretty natural to me.

Eh. No need to spar over convenient but questionable aphorisms. Be well.

I think the idea of a coalition of atheists around church-state separation issues, while not inherently flawed, faces the kinds of pitfalls that were pointed out in the linked article and in the comments on this thread.

First, getting atheists to agree on anything beyond a razor-thin range of issues may be a daunting task.

Second, atheists don't "own" the concern about church-state separation. It is almost certain that a much greater number of people of faith share the same concern. That reality ought to be inculcated in the atheist "movement" (if there is one) if only to avoid friction with natural allies who would recognize the limited thinking and close-mindedness of such errant claims.

Third, while the separation of church and state is a constitutional principle, and while it is reasonable, in fact, to hold that the US was not founded as a "Christian nation" per se, it is not accurate to deny the presence of Christian values undergirding the egalitarian principles incorporated in founding documents. I posted an article on that subject a while ago, so I won't repeat the discussion here.

Before I became an agnostic in junior high I was concerned about the separation of church and state. Because I'd been raised as a Jew I found the Christianity I encountered in public school more than a little troubling. It made me feel ashamed of my religion. I don't think the Christian stuff was intended to make me feel bad. I think it was the result of well meaning people trying to integrate their private life with secular institutions.

OK, there are some theocrats out there too, but I think the majority of people who want their religion in schools and government haven't really thought it through.

I don't see anything inherently harmful about religion. I know that people can pervert anything. The problem isn't religion. It's our species. Walt Kelly stated the general theory in that area. :)

Dave

OF course I agree with your points, but I am worried about the "Atheist movement". Here's why. There is a fairly well known atheist writer named Jerry Coyne, who wrote a book called "Why Evolution is true". He also has a blog. The articles and comments on the blog have nothing to do with evolution, they are all about how horrible religion is. Especilly Christianity. And, the main targets of Coyne and his followers are NOT the creationist deniers of evolution, but the Christians who agree that evolution is true. The reason for their antagonism is pretty clear. If is much easier to demonize Christians, when they scream about Darwin being the devil, and science is wrong, than it is to attack actual scientists and philosophers, who agree with most of their views, except they also happen to be Christians.

In other words, Coyne and Co. care nothing about allies among Christians to support evolution. Their true target is Christianity. That is what makes me worried about an "Atheist Movement." Despite the protestations, that this will be a purely defensive, pro Constitutional rights movememnt, I dont believe it. I think the only thing these atheists will find they both agree on, and really want to deal with, is their mutual hatred of Christian religion. From atheism (which is a negative idea) we may find a shift toward anti theism (an idea with real substance). I have already heard of academic atheists who think its a good idea to forbid open theists from holding faculty rank in the sciences. And so on.

Simon, any movement will have large-mouthed, small-brained proponents, kind, empathetic proponents, amoral antisocial proponents, etc. etc. etc. I think that Christianity has weathered close to 2000 years of everything from vague distaste to armed opposition and weathered it well, if not always gracefully. While I hold no particular brief for any religion (or for atheism, for that matter) I doubt that Jerry Coyne will bring down Christianity when the forces of Nero, Saladin and Hitler couldn't do it.

You're doing a lot of heavy lifting with your BioLogos work, Sy.

This is on their home page right now.

"Christians and secularists alike are in danger of treating 'Darwin vs the Bible' as just another battlefront in the polarized 'culture wars'. This grossly misrepresents both science and faith. BioLogos not only shows that there is an alternative, but actually models it. God's world and God's word go together in a rich, living harmony." — N.T. Wright, Bishop of Durham

1. Hitler was a christian.

2. 2000 years is nothing but a drop compared to how long people have been here, and how many different beliefs (and non beliefs ) have existed.

In fact... for 2000 years, christians have done a good job of "weathering" by killing, murdering, going on blood-soaked crusades, and all out torture of those who believed differently for years before "christ" existed and for centuries after.

Gee, Chelsea, dont hold back. Tell us how you really feel.

All kidding aside, with a comment like that, does it surprise you that Christians might just a little bit doubt that the only thing you are after is...um...constitutional guarantees? Sounds like you your agenda is, shall we say, just a tad, Anti Christian? I mean with all their murdering and stuff.

I cant help repeating what Pete says below. Get yourself some good basic history texts, and read up. Or even better, since I think you are still in school, right? Take a good course.

Get yourself some good basic history texts

So you're insinuating that I don't know history because I've pointed out the historical moments of The crusades, witch burnings, stonings, wars, etc?

Because I know and study history, and because I've pointed out things that are actual occurrences in time brought on by certain 'beliefs', I am told to "get good basic history texts?"

I don't follow.

I also don't follow how mentioning the simplistic points of the blood-soaked and oppressive history of Christianity is somehow equal to having "anti-christian" motives in protecting the constitution in my home country.

I guess if you believe that protecting the nation from the history of this type repeating itself, you can call it anti-christian if you want. Because it's pro freedom and pro-humanity.. which is apparently anti-christian as well.

P.s. I produced factual references to cement the fact that Hitler was a christian ( i.e. a follower of jesus christ) -- touting off "get a history education" in place of any/none-at-all sources to back up the false statement that he wasn't? Yeah, good job ;)

two fails in a row, I'm afraid.

You dont plan to go into teaching, do you?

Meaning? (or is that just a snide attempt at commenting as you really have nothing else of value to add?)

You did use the word simplistic in its correct sense. You probably meant to say simple, but simplistic is much more accurate. The reason I suggested that you might want to study history is that you might learn that simplistic descriptions of events tend to be wrong, sometimes spectacularly so.

For example, I wonder if you have learned the history of the Dark Ages, when only Christian churches and monasteries provided any refuge at all from the truly blood thirsty oppressive violence of the former Roman officials who became the ruling barons of chaotic Europe, and who eventually became the murderous European Royal families. No religious group has ever come close to the barbarism of European "nobility" in their quest for power and control. And only the Church was able to oppose them to any extent.

You might have also learned that the Crusades and the Inquisition, while quite terrible were actually fairly minor events in a period that included constant political warfare and murder for the sake of power. Look up the War for the Spanish Succession, one of my favorites.

She plans to go into journalism. Not necessarily right away.

No, I did have something else to add, and there it is. As for teaching, (having done quite a bit myself, as have Dave and Pete) my point is that your style of...um discussion, is not very conducive to educating people. Its a bit... shall e say, hyper critical, and bombastic, something that students tend to shy away from.

She plans to go into journalism. Not necessarily right away.


No I don't.

You might want to try to know at least half about someone before you lie/spread falsities about them. You end up looking stupid when you do such things.

p.s. I didn't use "simplistic" improperly (if that's what you were saying, looked like there may have been a typo there.. not sure) Again:

pay attention.

Making factual statements and producing the sources that support the statements = "bombastic" in Simon's nonsensical point of view.

Got it.

That explains so very much.

I don't come here to "educate people," for one thing. If someone is uneducated to the point that they need to seek it on a Gather News article, then they're probably beyond any hope so why would I bother?

I don't know how you "taught" people, but the proper way to be "correct" in a discussion is to state a fact, produce sources, move along. I've done that.

:) now either pat attention or enjoy the dust, because the rest of this blah blah blah isn't really productive.

OK Kiddo, I have enough kids of my own to deal with. You can grow up on your own time.

OK Kiddo, I have enough kids of my own to deal with. You can grow up on your own time.

I do hope that your children are taught to read, so they don't end up embarrassing themselves as you have tonight. :( You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. I lead you to the sources, but you just wouldn't (couldn't?) read.

I'm sorry that the very simple fact mentioned above has led you to the ad hominem attack that I am comparable to your children in some manner. Again, I do hope they are taught to read so as to avoid the faux pas you've managed to dig yourself into here.

Have a good night, and remember knowledge=power. Willful ignorance=stagnation.

I was joking Chelsea (at your expense, I fear). pay attention.

No, Sy's statement about your use of the word "simplistic" contained no typo, and it was at your expense too, I fear.

I didn't get it. The journalism bit made no sense. Though I've noticed a lot of people think that just because someone can write, and do write, they're immediately "journalists" or "reporters" I run into that a lot here on Gather for some reason.

Sy? Simon, rather, I don't think he pays attention to half of what he says. I know I don't.

Yeah. It wasn't a very elaborate funny, but I was hoping it would break the tension. Enjoy your evening. Oh, and if you're going to ignore someone, ignore me. You'll find that Simon, while he may be an "acquired taste" (sorry, Sy, couldn't resist), is well-educated, well-read, and decent. Ignore his typos!

I generally avoid pile-ons, Chelsea, but your insults are so ceaseless--and let's add, hilariously outrageous, considering that you're talking to some of the best educated people on Gather in the thread above--that I can't resist pointing out that you do in fact consistently misuse "simplistic". I've seen is plenty of times before. You do it so often that it took me less than a minute to find these two, on the same post:

"That is just the most simplistic, honest fact of the matter. Arguing this is like arguing whether or not the ocean contains salt." Link

"nothing more simplistic than the difference between duwr and chuwg, but you wouldn't know that with your mere interest in arguing "poetry" and refusing to actually substantiate your 'claims.'" Link

In both cases (as in the others I've seen), you obviously mean "simple".

(S/B "I've seen it plenty of times...")

Other prominent Christians include Ivan the Terrible, Fulgencio Batista, Gilles de Retz, Rodrigo Borgia (AKA Pope Alexander VI,) Countess Elizabeth Bathory, Emperor Justinian, Torquemada...

It doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with the religion. It does mean that people are able to reconcile their moral principles with completely reprehensible behavior.

Chelsea, Hitler's animosity towards Christianity is well documented in numerous sources. Do your homework.

It's a talking point, Pete, and she needs it here. Chelsea actually knows all she needs to know at this point. She's in output mode now.

You should have done your homework, Pete. Because you fail.

Hitler had an irrational hatred of anyone who was AGAINST christ, that includes atheists and other groups. He didn't like "religion" but he was a CHRISTIAN.

Might want to read about something before you make a t-total fool out of yourself, Pete. You might find that insulting others who actually do know differently only further takes away from what tiny shred of credibility you may have possessed.



Angebert, Jean-Michel (1974), The Occult and the Third Reich, Macmillan, ISBN 978-0-02-502150-1.
Baynes, Norman (1942), The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939, 1, New York: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-598-75893-4.
Carrier, Richard (2003), ""Hitler's Table Talk": Troubling Finds", German Studies Review 26 (3): 561–576, doi:10.2307/1432747.
Davies, Norman (1996), Europe: A History, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-820171-7.
Dawidowicz, Lucy (1986), The War Against the Jews: 1933-1945, Bantam, ISBN 978-0-553-34532-2.
De George, Richard; Scanlan, James (1975), Marxism and religion in Eastern Europe: papers presented at the Banff International Slavic Conference, September 4–7, 1974, Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Fest, Joachim (1973), Hitler: Eine Biographie, Propyläen, ISBN 978-3-549-07301-8.
Fest, Joachim (2002), Hitler, Harcourt, ISBN 978-0-15-602754-0.
Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas (1985), The Occult Roots of Nazism: The Ariosophists of Austria and Germany, 1890-1935, Wellingborough, England: The Aquarian Press, ISBN 978-0-85030-402-2.
Gunther, John (1938), Inside Europe, New York: Harper & brothers.
Hart, Stephen; Hart, Russell; Hughes, Matthew (2000), The German soldier in World War II, Osceola, Wisconsin: MBI.
Hitler, Adolf (1926), Mein Kampf, 2.
Irving, David (1978), The War Path: Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939, New York: Viking Press, ISBN 978-0-670-74971-3.
Kershaw, Ian (1987), The ‘Hitler Myth': Image and Reality in the Third Reich, Oxford University Press.
Kershaw, Ian (2000), Hitler, 1889-1936: Hubris, London: W. W. Norton & Company (published 1999), ISBN 978-0-393-32035-0.
Miner, Steven (2003), Stalin's Holy War, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, ISBN 978-0-8078-2736-9.
Rissmann, Michael (2001), Hitlers Gott. Vorsehungsglaube und Sendungsbewußtsein des deutschen Diktators, Zürich München: Pendo, pp. 94–96, ISBN 978-3-85842-421-1.
Sage, Steven (2006), Ibsen and Hitler: the playwright, the plagiarist, and the plot for the Third Reich, New York: Carroll & Graf, ISBN 978-0-7867-1713-2.
Shirer, William (1960), The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany, New York: Simon & Schuster, retrieved 2008-04-28.
Siemon-Netto, Uwe (1995), The Fabricated Luther: The Rise and Fall of the Shirer Myth, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, ISBN 978-0-570-04800-8.
Speer, Albert (1997), Inside the Third Reich, Orion, ISBN 978-1-85799-218-2.
Steigmann-Gall, Richard (2003), The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-82371-5.
Thomsett, Michael (1997), The German opposition to Hitler: the resistance, the underground, and assassination plots, 1938-1945, Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, ISBN 978-0-7864-0372-1.
Toland, John (1976), Adolf Hitler, Doubleday, ISBN 978-0-385-03724-2.
Toland, John (1992), Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography, New York: Anchor, ISBN 978-0-385-42053-2.
Westerlund, David; Ingvar, Svanberg (1999), Islam outside the Arab world, New York: St. Martin's Press.
Zipfel, Friedrich (1965), Kirchenkampf in Deutschland 1933-1945, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co..

Very impressive that you read all those books Chelsea. I am not as well read as you are, since I have only read five of them. Angebert, Davies, Dawidowicz, Irving, Thomsett. I'm not sure what the others say, perhaps you could supply us with the relevant quotes, but all the books I have read on the subject (including a few more not on your list) make it quite clear that Hitler was NOT a Christian, but a believer in various Teutonic myths, (such as the Hollow Earth Theory) and had a strong belief in astrology, polytheism and the occult. Hitler was heavily involved with Dieter Eckart, a member of the Thule Society, and occult, mystical and anti Semitic group. Eckart was mentor to both Hitler and Rosenberg, and I believe introduced them.

I should also mention, that I looked at the same article on Wikipedia that Chelsea used to get her list of references. That article is quite biased in my view, and does not present an accurate perspective at all, although it does refer to a number of sources that do give the true story. Hitler was not at all Christian.

Chelsea, seriously. You want us to believe that you read all those books? Or that you've used any part of them to come up with the above comment? :)

Hitler was a Christian in one sense only: he wasn't Jewish, and like virtually all non-Jewish kids in Austria at the time, he was brought up as a Roman Catholic. ("Christian" is still used that cultural sense in Europe, by the way--a believer is "religious".) Because of his target audience, he occasionally (not all that often, either, compared to other themes) inserted Christian references into his speeches, but as mentioned by Pete, his opinion that Christianity was a religion of the weak is well known. His "religion" was the biological (in a misunderstood Darwinian sense) and cultural superiority of the "Aryan race". He certainly didn't hate the many Nazis who were into "pagan" Norse mythology or (faux) eastern mysticism and were themselves anti-Christian. And he wasn't exactly kind to Christians who resisted his rule.

(Crosspost with Sy)

Chelsea, seriously. You want us to believe that you read all those books? Or that you've used any part of them to come up with the above comment? :)


The list of references blatantly point out, that Adolf Hitler was a follower of Jesus Christ among other things.

Your comment shouldn't be a snide comment about whether or not I've personally read each and every book in the list while further commenting fallacies about a historical figure. But since it is, you've disqualified yourself from being part of this "debate." :) (meaning no more responses to you are necessary)

It's easier to play like a "grownup" than a spoiled brat who doesn't want to learn something new ;)

(these references teach the facts that I don't know, and don't want to be true, so I will call them biased derp herp derp)

The list of references blatantly point out, that Adolf Hitler was a follower of Jesus Christ among other things

No, they dont. They just happen to have been listed in the Wikipedia article which fooled you into thinking they do. They dont. Check them out.

I am baffled by your last sentence. To whom are you referring? Not yourself I trust.

Someone doesn't know how to navigate a Google Books excerpt search.

To be honest, I have had this very debate before. That is why I am already locked and loaded with all of the proper references. I've researched it, I've read many of the KEY points of the sources, and yes, they are sources that a wiki article also uses. They are still THE sources.

So... you can either harness willful ignorance or not. It's not my problem.

I'll just continue being educated on the facts of the matters at hand and choose not to debate/discuss with those who lack the capacity to do the same.

Have a good one.

Now do you see what I mean, Pete?

We all know how to search for a word in Google Books, Chelsea. Some of us also know what it means to be reasonably well read on a topic. :)

so well read that you've nothing to say against the sources without being laughed at? :)

Guys, this is a tough nut to crack. I have tried, too.

well so far I've only seen arguing that there ARE sources instead of actually bringing up facts and discussing them.

This nut doesn't need cracking in that aspect -- and they know it. That's why not one single person is even attempting to carry the discussion civilly. I produce sources and get told to "get a history education." Yeah, that's really "grown up."

;)

But just for poops and giggles I will try again:

As for Hitler's religion, Randy Black says: You will find this in Mein Kampf: "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work." Hitler said it again at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews ... The work that Christ started but could not finish, I -- Adolf Hitler -- will conclude." In a Reichstag speech in 1938, Hitler again echoed the religious origins of his crusade. "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work."
http://wais.stanford.edu/Germany/germany_hitler03102004.htm

sure hitler was stupid in not acknowledging that Jesus was a jew, but it also isn't uncommon for modern christians to not know what's in their bibles, so it's not at all surprising.

Curiously, you haven't responded to anything in the content part of my 9:54 comment--you know, the longer paragraph.

No, I did respond to it.

Hitler several times throughout several of his own statements identified as a follower of Jesus Christ. That, by its very definition, is a Christian.

As for him being subjective in who he killed, christian or not, doesn't really make any difference. Many christians hate each other for not worshipping christ the way the other sees fit. Why would Hitler be any different?

Born and raised catholic and later became an non-affiliated christian who had the ideas that christ was an aryan being... there still plenty of so called christians who subscribe to the same ideals. Doesn't make them any less "christian."

Of course, I don't blame people for being so embarrassed about it that they'd pick and choose any way to negate his religious views. Seeing as though that is how he, himself, identified as, that's really all that matters ;)

But yeah, you might want to read through the comments again, because I already addressed this. Just not as in depth.

Anyway, I'm done debating the nonpoints of Hitler since this isn't the point of the thread. ;)

The end point being: Yes, Hitler was Christian. No, other "christians" don't really have the power to posthumously decide someone is not christian, no matter how embarrassing the figure is to their belief. It's what he identified as; there are plenty of writings indicating it. Deal with it. Or in the words of those who have yet to produce a credible source to back up their claims: "get a history education." ;)

Hitler often associated atheism with bolshevism, communism, and Jewish materialism.[62] Hitler stated in a speech to the people of Stuttgart on February 15, 1933: "Today they say that Christianity is in danger, that the Catholic faith is threatened. My reply to them is: for the time being, Christians and not international atheists are now standing at Germany’s fore. I am not merely talking about Christianity; I confess that I will never ally myself with the parties which aim to destroy Christianity. Fourteen years they have gone arm in arm with atheism. At no time was greater damage ever done to Christianity than in those years when the Christian parties ruled side by side with those who denied the very existence of God. Germany's entire cultural life was shattered and contaminated in this period. It shall be our task to burn out these manifestations of degeneracy in literature, theater, schools, and the press—that is, in our entire culture—and to eliminate the poison which has been permeating every facet of our lives for these past fourteen years."[63]
In a radio address October 14, 1933 Hitler stated, "For eight months we have been waging a heroic battle against the Communist threat to our Volk, the decomposition of our culture, the subversion of our art, and the poisoning of our public morality. We have put an end to denial of God and abuse of religion. We owe Providence humble gratitude for not allowing us to lose our battle against the misery of unemployment and for the salvation of the German peasant."[64]
In a speech delivered in Berlin, October 24, 1933, Hitler stated: "We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."[65]
In a speech delivered at Koblenz, August 26, 1934 Hitler states: "There may have been a time when even parties founded on the ecclesiastical basis were a necessity. At that time Liberalism was opposed to the Church, while Marxism was anti-religious. But that time is past. National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a real Christianity. The Church's interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of today, in our fight against the Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for the consciousness of a community in our national life, for the conquest of hatred and disunion between the classes, for the conquest of civil war and unrest, of strife and discord. These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles."[66]
During negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordat of April 26, 1933 Hitler argued that "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith."[67]

Hitler sounds a lot like today's far-right christians in America! wow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

Hi Chelsea, OMG, your are soooo cool. I have to tell you I have been waiting for ages to find another person on Gather who is younger than like 50 or whatever. And you are sooo smart!! And a girl!! I wish I had seen you before. And I really really sympathize with you having to argue with all these old people all at once. I know Aniko pretty well, and she is a nice person, and also very smart, and not really THAT old, but Simon, who I really really know really well (yes, that's what I mean), is like, well, I mean old for real. And very opinionated. So I think what you are doing is great, just keep it up, and dont back down. There are people on Gather who think I am simplistic also, just because I never actually finished my education, but Im thinking about getting my GED, as soon as I have the time. But that doesnt mean Im dumb, like some people, I wont mention names, have hinted at. I certainly know who Hitler was, and I didnt know he was a Christian so thanks for explaining that. Boy, if Hitler was a Christian thats pretty bad. I was married to an ex priest once, and he was really really Christian when I met him, and then he sort of lost his faith, I guess it was partly my fault, whatever, thats a whole nother story, which I told everyone about a long time ago. Anyway, I read Simon's really snide comments about you and kids and growing up, and boy, he has some nerve. He used to say things like that to me too, so just ignore him. But Aniko is right. He is pretty well educated. So is Dave I think, and Aniko has read every book every written. I mean really. But, that doesnt mean they are right. I think you are very brave to stick to your arguments, even when they gang up on you with all their knowledge and stuff. I really wish I could be a little more like you, and just stick to what I believe in no matter what. Are you a natural red head btw? I need to put up a new photo, this one is so out of date, Im platinum blonde at the moment.
I hope we become really really good friends, I have been very lonely here on Gather with all these old people constantly telling me stuff and never listening at all. You would never believe some of the stuff they say about me, mostly from jealousy. I need to stand up for myself more, maybe you can teach me how. Bye.