Walter, that’s an interesting round-up. The Irish blasphemy law merits a separate post of its own (the issues are a touch more complicated than they seem), but for now I’ll just comment on two of the other stories you pass on.
I have no idea whether Obama is right or wrong in thinking that there’s a ‘spark of the divine’ within each of us, but I see no reason for anyone to be ‘offended’ (dread word) by the assertion. Coming from a believer it is, in fact, a compliment.
And then there’s Mitch Daniels. The Indiana governor’s claim that “all” the horrific crimes of the last century were committed by atheists is absurd, even if we assume that he is referring to the major historical atrocities that defiled that unhappy period. In this context, it says something in particular about Daniels’ knowledge of history that he so confidently includes Hitler in the atheist ranks. Hitler was no Christian, certainly, but to work out what his religious beliefs really were is no easy task, not least because many of his own statements on the topic were more a matter of cynical political expediency than serious professions or rejections of faith. So far as one can discern, however, Hitler does appear to have had some belief in God or ‘Providence’, but perhaps Gov. Daniels has a different interpretation of what the word “atheist” actually means.
Or maybe he just doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
in college i did some poking around about the religious ideology of the third reich. the short of it was that there wasn’t really a coherent ideology. the anti-christian streak was pretty strong within the SS though. in 1940, at a time when 90-95% of the german population were of protestant or catholic confession, 90% of the SS officer corps registered their own religious ideology as non-christian. but they weren’t atheists, they were “god believers.” hitler did not seem to have heinrich himmler’s sympathies for a reconstructed german neo-paganism, but i think it is also plausible to accept that his avowals of catholic faith on occasion were matters more of public image and pandering to specific audiences than sincere. but he clearly had a sense of the supernatural as pervading the worth, and would mostly definitely be categorized as ‘superstitious.’
i am rather confident that if the third reich had persisted it would have moved its anti-christian agenda more explicitly to the forefront within germany itself, though in a far more gradualist fashion than the communists ever did. but, i am also skeptical that the state would have disavowed religious sensibility and assumed that a materialist racial-nationalist would have sufficed. i think to term the german nazi vision ‘pagan’ is accurate insofar is that that excludes the set of materialist atheism and christian theism. but it’s also a pretty vague and fuzzy term.
@David Hume
for hitler you can find pro-christian and anti-christian quotes. this is a big problem in the current atheist vs. christian atmosphere in the united states, because the two sides will trot out quotes which support “their side.”
@David Hume
“The Indiana governor’s claim that “all” the horrific crimes of the last century were committed by atheists is absurd”
I find this to be a reasonable claim when properly interpreted as ‘unchecked progressivism can lead to unchecked actions.’ Culture informs people about social expectations. When culture rapidly changes, people become dislocated — It’s just like traveling abroad and using foreign currency. It’s easy to loose a sense of worth, because much of our senses are implicit and particular. In many ways, such situations cause people to feel rather uninhibited.
The mistake, of course, is to see the issue as specific to religion or even to culture. Regardless, there was likely a some correlation between some of the particular atrocious activities of the 20th century and various forms of dislocation.
There’s a kernel of truth here, but Daniels is employing it for the wrong argument. It is often asserted that while religion is responsible for many if not most of the horrific crimes throughout history (partially true, given that so much of history is religious history), atheism would/will remove the underpinnings of irrational blood-lust, leaving us in a saner secular world.
When confronted with such a simplistic history it is worth pointing out (as a cautionary note) that officially atheist regimes under communism could quickly become slaughter houses without the gods’ approval. A similar bell is rung when someone sees antisemitism as specifically Christian. Luther, yes, but also Voltaire.
Mitch Daniels turns this point on its head and makes a bit of fool out of himself, even if he only refers to crimes in the recent century. No discussion of the Holocaust is complete without considering early 20th-century Christian antisemitism. There’s plenty of blame, and blood, to go around.
As an atheist/agnostic/theologically non-commital type o’ guy, I’ve gotta say, the 20th century was awfully hard on the fantasy that removing God from the picture would make for a more peaceful world.
And if its not the case that atheists committed all the atrocities, they were certainly statistically overrepresented.
I think the Christians got their mass-kiling out of their system a while ago, fortunately before modern technically magnified the lethality of belief systems run-amok.
The Indiana governor’s argument that all of the horror of the 20th century was due to atheists is true. But that’s not the whole story or even the significant part of it. He made his comments, no doubt, with the atheistic ideologies of Nazism and Communism in mind. It is certainly true that these two ideologies killed more people than any other in history and that they are “atheist” ideologies. However, prior to the 20th century, the various religious memes killed more people than anyone else. However, where our governor friend walks off the map is that he fails to consider that the atheistic memes of communism and Nazism occupy the same “meme niche” in the brains of those who believe in these as does Christianity and Islam in the brains who believe in these. Psychologically and cognitively speaking, there is no difference between a “religious” meme and a “atheistic” one. A meme is a meme is a meme.
There is another issue that our governor friend neglects to mention as well. Both types of memes require that the individual submit his or her self to a larger purpose and that the individual does not have the fundamental right to live life to his or her own dreams and goals. In other words, both types of memes are collectivist in nature. This is the true nature of these memes and why they are so evil. The fact that one type is “religious” and the other “atheistic” is mere detail and an insignificant one at that. That the commies and Nazis killed a larger order of magnitude of people than the Catholics and Muslims before them is more a testament to the improvement in killing ability and efficiency brought about by the industrial revolution more than it is of the relative merits of a religious collectivist meme vs. an atheistic collectivist meme, The fact that both types of memes are collectivist is the key point. Not whether they are “religious” or “atheistic”.
Nazism was not atheistic. Though its ideological coherency is lacking, so asserting anything positive about it besides its anti-Semitism and German nationalism is dicey.
Hitler considered himself a Christian. He made statements through out his life that he was a Christian, and specifically that he was a Catholic. Even in the end, in his bunker he affirmed that he was “a good Catholic”. Why is it so hard for people to accept the man at his word when all was lost?
Threadjack! Congratulations Senator Brown! I am happy to have my prediction of a Dem win proven wrong.
I’d be interested in hearing more about the new Irish blasphemy law. I’m aware that it’s grounded in a provision of the Irish constitution, so it’s not simply a question of blaming the country’s current Parliament. As to the law’s content, however, I’ve heard nothing redeeming.
As I understand the blasphemy law, it makes it a criminal offense punishable by a fine of 25,000 Euros to say, or write, “grossly abusive” commentary about any religion that may cause “outrage” to a “substantial number” of practitioners of that religion.
Where do I begin? Apart from the obvious–who decides what constitutes “grossly abusive,” and what criteria are used–what’s a “substantial number”? Two? Five? Six hundred? Another point in the law is that while atheists may be prosecuted for attacking any religion, they’re not protected from attack, since atheism isn’t a religion. Are Druids and Wiccans protected? I think perhaps not, but practitioners of Wicca certainly regard themselves as religious.
And, by the way, what are they going to do with their literature? By which I mean James Joyce, Samuel Beckett, William Butler Yeats, and the countless others whose writing might, by some, be construed as “blasphemous.”
Can you see someone being busted for reading James Joyce in public at high noon? Under the new law, I suppose it could happen.
“The fact that both types of memes are collectivist is the key point. Not whether they are “religious” or “atheistic”.”
Any human “meme” can lead to mass destruction. The individualistic claim on the US, the manifest destiny – a destiny not at all obvious – can be seen as a tribalist movement of Anglo-Saxon protestants ( I note that particular religous group not getting too much blame in these comments from the people now on land seized by their ancestors), or individualist entrepeneurs moving freely across the land. Both were claimed at the time. Either way lots of people died. So humans kill humans for collectivist, and non-collectivist reasons i.e. personal greed. What ya gonna do?
” He made statements through out his life that he was a Christian, and specifically that he was a Catholic”
he made specifically anti-Catholic statements, preferred protestantism, praised Islam – and attacked all kinds of Christianity ( although mostly Catholic).
“Where do I begin? Apart from the obvious–who decides what constitutes “grossly abusive,” and what criteria are used–what’s a “substantial number”? Two? Five? Six hundred?”
this is probably what Andrew is hinting at in his original commentary about it being more complex than outsiders may imagine. The Act is designed not to not be used, but a law is necessary, since the constitution prohibits blasphemy the statue books have to be updated every so often ( there is not point in having a constitutional prohibition which outlaws something and charging a fine of £5 because the legislature never got around to indexing linking the original fine – that would make a mockery of the constitution. As if the ( or any) constitution outlawed murder, but the legislature merely fined people 1c for murder)
The previous Act was never used. As for what defines a religion that too would take a bit more knowledge of the Irish constitution than likely in blog comments.
Far more worrisome would be the movement to stop criticism of religion on PC grounds – in those cases the laws are very much used.
Eoin, you are quite correct. When I wrote that the situation was more complex than was often understood that’s exactly what I was referring to.
If time allows, I do hope to return to the two other points you mentioned at the end of your comment, as they are both key.
Hitler may have critized Catholics on occasion and praised other religions, but there’s no record of him praising atheism. He reprimanded Bormann, the only avowed atheist in the Nazi hierarchy for publishing anti-Christian pamplets. If you review copies of Hitler’s beer hall speeches, you find that the bread and butter was that “the Jews killed Jesus”. There was probably nothing Hitler “attacked” less than Christanity. To say that Hitler was anti-Christian is nonsense. All you have to do to know that is read Mein Kamph.