In the absense of the forum this week my students came up with the following questions they would like members to consider:


"Is it better for our political leaders to believe in God than to be agnostics or atheists?"

"Is it better for our political leaders to believe in God than to be agnostics or atheists?"

Well … there's just been a bit of research done (I don't have the source right in front of me right now) which compares all sorts of factors such as poverty and the incidence of violent crime, abortion, teenage pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases in a number of different developed countries. The raw data indicates that there's a strong correlation between having lots of problems and there being a lot of religion in a particular country.

Thus, the more religious countries and regions within countries have much more murder, violent crime, abortion, teenage pregnancy, sexually-transmitted disease and general unhappiness than the countries and regions which are not particularly religious.

Of course, we don't know for certain why this is, but it would seem to indicate that being agnostic or atheist is a good quality for a society.

Andy, John and students. A daunting set of questions, I think. Some of them beg more questions. Here are some comments. There is a good article on 'vanguard' as opposed to 'pluralist' democracy here ( http://bad.eserver.org/issues/2004/70/crumpacker.html ) that I think makes a good argument for Cuba being an example of good democracy. I would consider the Swedish and the Swiss model as well.

A rather unwieldy format to those inexperienced with it worthy of consideration is consensual descicion making. Done properly it may be slow but it allows a deeper consideration of issues that may be too hastily arrived at where single individuals are overlooked by looking for a majority ruling. In one case I'm familiar with a descicion postponed allowed a minority position (of one) to be argued thoroughly and in the end it prevailed and turned out to be the correct one.

(David, I wonder if there is a correlation between being fair haired and living in peaceful prosperous nations?)

Of course religion and having a faith in god run paralell but are not necessarily the same. What came first, the problems or the religion? Many of the meaningful steps forward in social evolution have been made by those who put god first. Christ and many of his followers for example. Similarly many delays and reversals have been the result of putting religion first. The same would go for atheists and agnostics, steps forward and steps back. I wonder if Galileo was a believer in god? He probably was. It's possible that this belief or faith enabled him to endure the religious persecution he encountered when he declared the earth not be the center of the universe.

(a very readable bio on Galileo is at http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/galileo/About/galileobio.html )

He persisted and even after avoiding martyrdom by renouncing Copernicus is said to have whispered 'and yet it moves'. In 1992 the church finally exonerated him. A christian might say he was exonerated by god in the beginning (by this I mean at Genesis, not in 1630).

Martin Luther declared the pope to be satan. Does this mean he didn't believe in god? Or that he didn't believe in established religion as it was presented to him?

"Should governments use military action to remove unpleasant political
leaders from power?"

No. If that was the case there wouldn't be ANY government.

but seriously... By un-pleasant I assume you mean of the evil kind. I think intense diplomacy and such things as the economic boycotts as were used to bring an end to Apartheid are good. If the country you live in has a bad leader, of course you must take care of your own people. At some point on many occasions through history, people have found it necessary to form a new government and to remove by military means the old leaders/governments.

On the domestic front one needs a strong informed citizenry, this means free education and medical care for all. Militarily one needs a strong defense to discourage any armed ventures. This means supporting weaker nations to achieve an independent defense. With the resultant level playing field maximum opportunity is presented to individual members of society to determine their own government. Hopefully then there will be no calls to interfere with nations rights of self determination as membership in the world becomes most attractive when one treats ones citizens properly and that citizenry demands it as a right.

I guess what I'm saying is 'lead by example'. 'Leading' with weapons in the hands of governments that have domestic issues themselves to deal with sends the wrong message.

Of course, I would prefer everyone to come to a full knowledge of, and relationship with, Jesus Christ, but I do believe in a secular state. Therefore I am quite happy with the leaders of the 'free world' being Christians, although they should also be able to justify their actions in more than a 'well God told me to do it' kind of way. The latter is a dangerous road to go down, as it is not verifiable by a third party. Deciding policy on more objective (perhaps bibllical) grounds holds leaders to account.

Doug

PS I know people will say biblical principles are subjective within a multi-faith society and open to interpretation but they can be a useful guide...

This research was carried out by Gregory Paul for the current edition of the “Journal of Religion and Society”. Paul compared data from 18 developed democracies. He concluded:

“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult morality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion.”

Paul discovered that the United States was very different from other advanced countries. As a result: “None of the strongly secularised, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction.”

Paul discovered that this pattern could be observed within nations. For example, he took a close look at the United States:

“The anti-evolution south and Midwest have markedly worse homicide, morality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the north-east where secularisation, and evolution approach European norms.”

United States is not alone who has a country governed by people who appear to be influenced by religious writings. A large number of underdeveloped nations try to govern in this way. This is especially true of Muslim states.

It seems to me that virtually every developed country has attempted to run a democratic system that takes account of the latest scientific and sociological evidence available. However, in a large percentage of underdeveloped countries, attempts have been made to run the government on the teachings of its religious leaders. This has resulted in women and homosexuals being denied their full human rights. It is also a factor in the rise of Muslim terrorism.

The United States provides a unique example in the developed world of a country that has important political leaders who have decided to ignore the latest scientific and sociological evidence available. The problem with this is that it ignores the physical and emotional needs of its citizens. It is the contraction between the ideology and the reality that has resulted in such high-rates of sexually transmitted disease, teenage pregnancy, abortions, etc. It is noticeable that it is those states that have bad records for educational spending that seem to have the highest rates of illegitimate children, etc.

I think that the primary question is whether a political leader should require their beliefs to determine their actions. It is recorded in the prophet Micah, "He has shown you what is good: what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy and walk humbly with your God." If this is used as a yardstick, then I think the question would be answered yes, it's better to have political leaders that believe in God, and who act on their beliefs.

Unfortunately, history tells an entirely different story. Most of the evil in the world is a result of battles over religion and political ideology. I personally believe that faith can't be used as a political yardstick; and that government cannot legislate faith. I also believe that a life of faith cannot justify terrorism as a revenge against terrorism. I have a very hard time justifying warfare with a life of faith. Yet, it's been done for millennia.

The ancient Hebrew people asked God for a king, so that they could be a people like everyone else; they couldn't handle the notion of acting purely out of faith. Scriptures also explain that they were warned about the results of such a request; and that they wouldn't like the results. They were given a king, and he wasn't much better than all of the other kings. The best of their kings were still full of human weaknesses.

I turned my life over to God thirty years ago; I was doing a pretty lousy job of running my life. I'm not a saint, I still screw things up and God does not respond positively to many of my prayers. Yet, I can no more NOT believe in God than I can NOT breathe. The life I see around me does not determine my beliefs; my beliefs are based on what I've experienced since I asked God to take charge of my life.

I usually find out that living life by a set of principles that have been around for a few thousand years works better than living life based on television, movies and the media-- the only real alternative that is offered to us in western culture. That lifestyle pretty well explains why the world sucks. A life of faith often involves not giving in to my impulses and whims; and making uncomfortable choices. I just finished watching 'Vanilla Sky'-- an effective proverb without a coherent meaning for the individul watching the movie-- beyond the notion that life isn't made up of what one has; instead it's made up of what one is. If one judges their place in the universe based strictly on externals, then there is little in human behavior that can't be explained.
As an agnostic I had little to offer as a political leader-- some ideas learned from my parents, school and television. Some nonsense I was being taught in college. As an atheist, I would be offering antagonism toward religious belief; plus that other stuff. The instructor who was the most antagonistic toward faith was the one that taught the Old Testament as history. As a Christian I would be offering a total revolution of our political and economic system; consequently I'd never be elected, even if I had the slightest desire to do so. I can't justify the vast majority of American governmental policies from a position of faith.

So, regardless of the claims made by various political leaders as to their belief in God, most of their actions are based on a secular belief system. Whatever that means. If God told George to fight terrorists in Iraq, He didn't mention it to me. And I have trouble believing that God wanted noncombatants to be destroyed in the process; as with all wars. The Bible records wars mandated by God; I can't explain that; and I don't use it as a justification for our wars. History is usually written by the winning side. I cannot celebrate the winning of a war by the vaporizing of two cities, preceded by the fire bombing of another. As a person of faith I cannot justify napalm and projectiles made from depleted uranium.

In college I lived down the hall from a current US Senator. He had aspirations of being President. While I didn't know him well, I knew him well enough to be disinclined to ever vote for him. Ironically, he's been doing some good things for the country in spite of his idiosyncracies. Perhaps religion and politics don't mix well.

Belief in God is often used as an excuse for inexcusable actions. Frequently God is given 'credit' for abominable actions. If I have to make a choice between having a President who believes in God and one who doesn't, I'm inclined to vote for the one who isn't inclined to overthrow foreign nations on trumped up excuses supposedly relating to national security. One who doesn't rape the wilderness because he's fond of the oil industry and its beneficiaries. One who is supposedly 'at war' with families he allowed to escape the country on 9/11.

The only answer I have is the one offered in Micah.

I don't know about the other findings Paul made, but when it comes to STDs, abortion and teenage pregnancy, I'm fairly certain that the correlation isn't between fair hair and low levels of problems, but between people who believe that it's worth trying to improve the world we live in … and low levels of problems.

In other words, the fact that contraception is freely available in Sweden, and that Swedish young people get very clear and accurate information about sexuality does seem to result in low levels of teenage pregnancy, STDs, etc.

There should be no political leaders, people do not need managers.

Anyone over the age of 8 who still believes in a God should be given medicine anyway.

You'll have to let me know when your stage show is, it's a must

To attempt an answer to the question (whilst trying to readjust my laughed-off socks)...

Evidence is conflicting. Perhaps the worst individuals to have led countries (Hitler, Stalin) had very odd religious histories, and are seen as atheists. In the modern era (New World Order?) most openly religious leaders are the pits, man (to quote McEnroe, J P) for example Bush, Sharon, Blair (but that doesn't really let 'leaderless' fundamental muslims 'off the hook'). Then of course there's Mugabe, allegedly a Roman Catholic.

Again historically, you don't have to look far to see that there has been a lot of turmoil in the name of religion - Crusades, English Civil War, Oppression of Ireland, countless other European wars.

So perhaps where this is going as an answer is to say that, whilst we might hope that someone who was religious (if we take it as the Christian western dominant ideological version ie god-fearing, neighbour-loving, commandment-observing, never-lying, good-doing [Pepsi]) would make a good 'leader' - such as the people might want or need one (to echo Dafydd) - the experience of it is rather different. This then begs a rather different question: What type of person is it who grow up to be a leader? I think there's far more commonality here. Perhaps for the political discussion in the future we could set something like: Are Hitler, Stalin, Blair, Bush (add a mix of a half a dozen others) more alike than their religion/cultural backround/biographers would suggest? Or What are the quintessential ingredients of becoming a leader?

I'll leave aside your CIA-propagand opinion for a moment, and kindly inform you that Cde JV Stalin was not the 'leader' of a country, but the embodiment of the Will of the People.

Cheers!

I sit corrected! Would you be willing to discuss a possible refinement - "the embodiment of the Will of the People-who-survived-the-purges"? I'd be whole-heartedly with you/him on the purging from USSR the Romanovs.

830,000 were offed in the Yezhovschina, between 1937 and 1939. Judging by the amount of Trotsky-Fascists hawking their 'Social Worker's outside Tesco's on a Saturday, too many deviants slipped through the net!!!

I take it that's a "no" to the discussion, then! And it's spelled "Socialist Worker" (although pron = So'shlist Whirr'ka).. but the thoughts of people selling social workers outside Tescos could have a political-satirical humour somewhere in it... Presumably for all the basket cases....

yours,

an escapee (retired)

Having once been a victim of the Trotsky-Moonie cult and a seller of the said rag, I can vouch it is definitely called 'Social Worker'.

It is an unfortunate aspect of democracy that sometimes people with views one doesn't share manage to get elected. Who was the American politician who said "the People have spoken, damn them!"?

Again, it's a bit difficult, sometimes, to tell whether the religious beliefs claimed by politicians are genuine or simply adopted for electoral gain.

It is undoubtedly true that religious zealots can make awful political leaders. European History is strewn with examples from Savonarola onwards.

On the other hand, as Ed pointed out, you could just as easily find examples of awful political leaders who had no or negligible religious views, or who actively opposed religion. Despite Daffyd's views, Stalin is an excellent example of this sort of leader. Other examples would include Hitler, Mussolini, Mao and some of the bloodier leaders of the French Revolution ("The world will be happy when the last priest is strangled in the guts of the last aristocrat" Jacques Roux)

I suppose Doug would suggest that this all says something about some sort of inherent "badness" in Mankind. I would say that the fact that these people tend to be horrible exceptions and that they don't last long suggests the opposite.

If political leaders really followed the teachings of Jesus Christ it might well be a good idea for them to be Christians rather than atheists. However, history shows us that religious leaders are usually reactionaries whose policies have nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Take for example the policies of George Bush. President Bush, who became a born-again Christian at 40, is one of the most overtly religious leaders to ever occupy the White House, a fact which brings him much support in middle America. Recently he told a journalist that “I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

I suppose God also told him to introduce changes to the tax system that redistributed money from the poor to the rich. Before he took office America had the highest percentage of people living in poverty in the developed world. As a result of the changes he has made to the tax system, 12.7% now live in poverty. In other words, an increase of over 5.4 million people. However, only 8% of white people live below the poverty line in America. This is mainly a problem for racial minorities. This is reflected in the percentages for particular areas. For example, Detroit has 33.6% of its population living below the poverty line.

The recent Hurricane Katrina showed the world how the poor are treated in America. Bush admitted in a televised address to the nation that the hurricane had mainly affected the poor living in these areas. He added that this “deep, persistent poverty” had its “roots in a history of racial discrimination”. Bush promised a war on poverty but few people believe him. After all, he is currently promising extension of tax cuts on investment income and repealing the estate tax, two measures that will both benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. He is also proposing tens of billions of dollars of cuts to services like food stamps, federal student loans and Medicaid (the health insurance scheme for low-income Americans). All these measures will result in more problems for those living in poverty.

John;

In your apparant disdain for George Bush, you appear to have forgotten that:

1. The United States IS NOT a dictatorship in which the leader of the country makes the law.

2. It is the Congress of the United States which determines what is and what is not law.

3. It is the Congress of the United States which determines whether American Troops remain on foreign soil.

4. It is the Congres of the United States which approves those expenditures which determine the amounts of tax dollars which are dedicated to social & welfare programs.


The ethnic diversity of the population of the United States is like no other foreign country.
Since WWI.

We began as an "immigrant nation", and since WWI, we have taken in persons of virtually every faith as well as nationality.
Of which many were destitute upon arriving.

Exactly why is it that so many of those from these foreign soils have managed to do quite well and prosper under the economic conditions and climate of the US?????

Many continue to attempt to utilize the "Hurricane Katrina" example to demonstrate how little the United States cares for the poor.

Might I state as fact that this is a completely one-sided presentation.

The living conditions and economic class conditions of these "poor", by far exceeded the living standards of the majority of the known world.
Therefore, "poor" by US standards of living, is hardly "poor" by many world standards.

And, as has been repeatedly stated, the "STATE" of Louisiana is a Soverign State, of the United States of America.
As such, it is, first and foremost, responsible for the welfare of the citizens of that state, from whom the State of Louisiana collects State Income Tax, to provide this welfare.

In the event that the Federal Government intervenes in the internal affairs of the Soverign State of Louisiana, without clear and concise permission from the Governor of the State, then the U.S. Government is in violation of the laws and agreements between the Federal Government and the seperate and Soverign States which compose this federation.

WHEN, the Federal Government observes that the State Government IS NOT complying with the Federal Laws of the land, then, the Federal Government has the right to intervene.

The State of Louisiansa and it's Government, which represents it's population, failed to provide the necessary actions to protect it's citizenship.

Therefore, the situation.

Tom

P.S. It would appear that the majority of those who have watched the newscast as regard to Katrina, have overlooked the multitudes of 3 & 4 bedroom brick homes, in which this "poor class" of citizenship resided.

Andy asked:

"Is it better for our political leaders to believe in God than to be agnostics or atheists?"

In the last century, prominent atheists who held political power included Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler, whose regimes together killed over ten million people, many of them Jews.

Prominent professing (if not practicing) Christians included Woodrow Wilson, Winston Churchill, Dwight Eisenhower, Jiimmy Carter, Tony Blair, etc.

I guess I'd rather take my chances living in a nation governed by a Christian than one governed by an atheist!

Only an atheist could subscribe to (Stalin's) dictum that the loss of one human life is a tragedy but the loss of thousands of human lives is but a statistic.

Erm...Hitler was a Christian, not an atheist. He had leanings towards a Folkish tradition, probably influenced by Himmler more than anything, but to claim he was an atheist, is lying.

J V Stalin was not 'holding power' in the USSR by the way, and your attempt to align Soviet Socialism with some rabid brand of Nationalist Capitalism (Hitler's) is very twisted.



I'm sure the non-Christians living in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Kurdistan, Iraq would take a different view, seeing as WW, WC and TB were responsible for the deaths of thousands of their friends and family. As would the Christians in Guatemala, Yugoslavia and Ireland who were killed in their thousands by WC, DE and TB.



Well as Stalin never said such a thing, and the quote came from the mouth of the Christian Adolf Eichmann, we'll leave that one too.


Here's a quote: a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, but no knowledge at all is worse. (Dafydd Humphreys, 2005)

It might interest you to know Dafydd that Tim Gratz does not consider himself to be a right-wing extremist.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5186

I think it does history (let alone christianity) a GREAT disservice to portray the Nazis as christians, It's like saying Bush is a christian? Sure they came from a country with lutheran traditions, but when questioned about theifr faith, roughly half of gewrman POW's in britain put down their religion as 'Nature' and the other half "Hitler'.

During the Nuerenburg trials, defendants were offered priestly counselling, and while most were happy with the added contact and some saw conversion as a means to avoid the death penalty, some were genuine converts (or reverts) and accepted their fate, others like Herman Goering held fast to his non christian beliefs and comitted suicide.

Atheists? maybe maybe not, Theists? possibly. Christians? I don't think so.

Okay, I'll compromise. Despite the massive support for Hitlerism given by the organised Christian churches, I'll say that the majority of the head Nazi goons were not Christian.

But to claim they were Atheist is stark raving bonkers.

Dafydd:

I believe Hitler subscribed to bizarre occult religious beliefs.

It is absolutely incredible that you would call Hitler and Eichmnan Christians! What was your basis for this? To call people who tried to exterminate God's chosden people Christians is a damnable lie!!

Do you have any idea how many Christians risked (and often sacrificed) their lives to save Jews?

Have you ever heard of Dietrich Bonhoffer, a very prominent Christian theologist who re-entered Germany and gave up his life to stop Hitler? He was executed by the Nazis. I would strongly encourage you (and everyone) to read Bonhoffer's story and his book "The Cost of Discipleship". The cost of his discipleship to Christ was his life, taken by the tyrants you called Christians!

Hitler's religion?

John Gunther wrote:

He was born and brought up a Roman Catholic. But he lost faith early and he attends no religious services of any kind. His Catholicism means nothing to him; he is impervious even to the solace of confession. On being formed his government almost immediately began a fierce religious war against Catholics, Protestants, and Jews alike.

I have not yet read it in its entirety but the following essay looks interesting (about Hitler's "religion):

http://kevin.davnet.org/essays/hitler.html

I really do wonder why, when concerning history, most people only think back to the 2nd WW. History has no limits concerning the past but it seem to be very popular to think of the 2WW as the ultimate evil. Can't you think of any other crime against humanity? It seems that history has justified other genocides that were
at least as brutal and as terriyfing but nobody spends a thought anymore. If all events in human history had such an impact on people's conscience like the 2WW we surely would live in a better world.

George

I fully endorse George's call to extend our perspective a lot further back in time.

Sweden nowadays is a peace-loving country … but it hasn't always been that way. It was instructive reading Peter Englund's biography of Charles X of Sweden, for example, who launched an unprovoked attack on Poland-Lithuania. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed in that war, and the basis for it from Charles X's own account was plunder + attacking Catholics, with the attack on Catholics being probably the more important. There's a folk memory of that time among many people in Eastern Europe, with 'be good or the Swedes will come and get you' being a way of frightening the children.

Charles X lucked out in that war - the Swedes were driven out of Poland and across northern Germany, ending up on the territory of their arch-enemy, Denmark in the winter of 1658. They managed to attack across the (melting) ice, and ended up imposing the Treaty of Roskilde on the Danes, which gave Sweden huge tracts of the richest parts of Denmark. They failed to conquer the Danes totally because they were too weak to take Copenhagen. There were an English fleet and a Dutch fleet involved, but Oliver Cromwell withdrew the English ships (who would have intervened on Sweden's behalf) because he felt that his forces should be employed in killing Catholics, not in fighting against fellow-Protestants.

And then we have the 30 Years' War … and the massacre of the Huguenots … the extermination of the Cathars … the Crusades … and the 100 Years' War, to name but a few religious persecutions. You can see why the Founding Fathers didn't want foreign entanglements.

Seems to me that religious people have been killing others in the name of their creeds on all sides and in all faiths for about as long as there've been religions.

Tim: are the following also conveniently 'non-Christian' acts :-

The Inquisition

The European Witch Crazes

The Massacres in Ireland by the Cromwellian Puritans

The Medieval Crusades

The Orthodox Pogroms in Russia

The Franco period in Spain

Not to mention the millions of people who believed in religions which predate Judeo-Christianity in the New World and Africa by Imperialist Warriors of "God" out to pacify the 'Godless Heathens'.

You mention one prominent Christian who was executed by the Fascist Capitalists, Bonhoffer. If only I could name the millions of 'Godless Communist Atheists' who the Fascist executed for their beliefs.

Well I certainly agree there were atrocities and horrors commited in the name of Christianity.

And it is incredible that only a few hundreds of years ago Catholics and Protestants would kill each other over doctrines such as transubstitution (not being a Catholic I am sure I spelled it wrong).

Years ago "evangelization" was often become a Christian or we will kill you".

One cannot deny such things, of course.

But I repeat the fascists were not Christians!

Not even Franco in Spain? Mussolini in Italy? The Ustashe in Croatia? The Latin American crowd of CIA-trained gangsters?

The question was with regards to christians, which often (usually?) seems to be taken as the opposite of atheism.

Obviously Theism is the opposite of A-Theism. As argued earlier 'Religion' can be a structured world view around A-Theism.

However discussion about religion and atheism seems to become a discussion about christianity and rationality.

The problem that this becomes is that for those who choose to believe in jesus are assumed to be arguing for the irrational aspects of any religion. Not fair, I say. This web site could very well become an important historical document, dipped into by future historians. The more insightful of those will be writing some interesting Master thesis'.

_________________________

With regards looking for evil in the past?

I wonder to what extent the faith or lack of faith of the CEO of for example GMH decides marketing strategy?

Companies that concentrate on producing next years untried model at a time when the problems of the current crop are just being identified and a simple retooling and shift in emphasis could concievably save the lives of millions of people, avoid the attendant misery and save the oil, the lack of which drives war. These sanctioned murderers are not held to account, quite the opposite they are encouraged. But then, they are most likely christians?

Personally I think that a serious development of the Trabi concept into a model that only changes if necessary would be the way to go.

Clearly depends on one's definition of 'Christian'. It's pretty easy to say something like "oh look at what they did! They're not Christians, no matter what they might have said".

At that point the whole debate fails to exist. No leader I can think of, regardless of professed status as christian or other or non religion, would meet the criteria of being christian.

You might as well call people in the Labour Party socialists!

QUOTE(Ed Waller @ Oct 28 2005, 12:32 PM) [snapback]43321[/snapback]

QUOTE(Tim Gratz @ Oct 28 2005, 11:10 AM) [snapback]43313[/snapback]

Well I certainly agree there were atrocities and horrors commited in the name of Christianity.
And it is incredible that only a few hundreds of years ago Catholics and Protestants would kill each other over doctrines such as transubstitution (not being a Catholic I am sure I spelled it wrong).
Years ago "evangelization" was often become a Christian or we will kill you".
One cannot deny such things, of course.
But I repeat the fascists were not Christians!

Clearly depends on one's definition of 'Christian'. It's pretty easy to say something like "oh look at what they did! They're not Christians, no matter what they might have said".
At that point the whole debate fails to exist. No leader I can think of, regardless of professed status as christian or other or non religion, would meet the criteria of being christian.
You might as well call people in the Labour Party socialists!

Marx wrote:

"The foundation of irreligious criticism is this: man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is indeed the self-consciousness and self-awareness of man who either has not yet attained to himself or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man, the state, society. This state, this society produces religion's inverted attitude towards the world, because they are an inverted world themselves. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in a popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, its universal basis for consolation and justification. It is the imaginary realization of the human essence, because the human essence possesses no true reality. Thus, the struggle against religion is indirectly the struggle against the world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, it is the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of a soulless condition. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. The demand to give up illusions about their condition is a demand to give up a condition that requires illusion. The criticism of religion is therefore the germ of the valley of tears whose halo is religion."

An analysis from David L. Morgan - THE METAPHYSICS AND PHENOMENOLOGY OF RELIGION

"In this passage we see Marx describing religion as far more than an attempt to escape a miserable existence. It is equally a powerful description of and protest against this existence. The history of religions - including Christianity - is a history of protest. The Old Testament describes the protest of the ancient Hebrews against their enslavement by the Egyptians and their struggle for their liberation. This account also inspired Black slaves in the pre-Civil War American South who sought escape from their bondage. It also inspired the modern civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King and others. The message of the Gospel narrative includes Jesus condemning the rich and upholding the cause of the poor. Contemporary Liberation Theology, popular in Latin America and elsewhere, upholds this Gospel tradition. Thus while religion may at times serve as an escape, it clearly also serves a powerful motivator and transformer of people's lives. In the final paragraph quoted above we seek Marx declaring that the focus of any attack on religion must be diverted to an attack on the oppressive and unfulfilling conditions of existence which give rise to the need for religion. Thus for Marx, religion is truly oppressive when it becomes a device for upholding an oppressive status quo. Yet, as we have seen religion can also contain a revolutionary message of criticism and liberation.

Marx and Freud suggest that ultimately religion will disappear in a society in which science rules or in which oppression is absent, or both. Of course, we can ask whether even in such a world would not something like religious hope still function? Much of religion speaks to our mortality and finitude, characteristics that are likely to persist in spite of progress in the scientific and social spheres."

and with the following in mind: Wolff, Jonathan, "Karl Marx", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2003 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2003/entries/marx/>.

"It is interesting to read Marx here in the light of his third Thesis on Feuerbach where he indicates how it will not happen. The crude materialism of Robert Owen and others assumes that you can change people by changing their circumstances. However, how are those circumstances to be changed? By an enlightened philanthropist like Owen who can miraculously break through the chain of determination which ties down everyone else? Marx's response, in both the Theses and the Critique, is that the proletariat can break free only by their own self-transforming action. Indeed if they do not create the revolution for themselves — guided, of course, by the philosopher — they will not be fit to receive it."

So, while a-theist communists (as opposed to a-theist anti-communists) view 'religion as an opiate' a subtler understanding of this 'misquote' can be had. Marx was initially responding to an anti-semitic comment. He recognised the value of progressive religions, and argued that once a truly rational society is achieved, religion will naturally fade away. To me the essence of christianity deals with 'mortality and finitude, characteristics that are likely to persist in spite of progress in the scientific and social spheres.'

"...for Marx, religion is truly oppressive when it becomes a device for upholding an oppressive status quo. Yet, as we have seen religion can also contain a revolutionary message of criticism and liberation."

It is in the interest of the progressive left and the progressive liberation theologians to recognise each other. Both recognise the value of education as an antidote to oppression. The left that hammers at religious freedom only set the stage for an incomplete liberation and thus are themselves reactionary. Christians trust that jesus provides a true response to essential human spiritual condition, The progressive left trust that in time an educated people will naturally divest itself of opiates. Intolerance is a sign of lack of this trust and hence doubt re. their dogma, which is a good thing.

You're right John, that's what it is all about except that you could take instead of christianity any other belief
depending where such a forum is running. If this forum would be in Saudi Arabia we sure would have a dicussion about Islam and rationality but what would that change?

George

Just as there are people like bush who claims to be christians, there are no doubt atheists who claim to have once believed in god. What is almost always true is that christians have once not believed in god.

It is not hard for a christian to accept that a rational attitude of someone who has chosen not to believe in god should be an atheist, after all, as rational beings they almost all at one point have been one? The world that is experienced by someone choosing to believe is nevertheless real. It's probably absurd for an atheist to think that they through reason can understand this world.

I think, however, that it would be beneficial to all to see one try.


EDIT :: I wrote "However discussion about religion and atheism seems to become a discussion about christianity and rationality.The problem that this becomes is that for those who choose to believe in jesus are assumed to be arguing for the irrational aspects of any religion." As a christian I obviously have reasons to believe that christianity IS rational, while religions often lose their rational aspects in servicing earthly attachments such as hierachy and posessions. Such things are best left to society as a whole to nut out.

Hitler was not a Christian but that of course does not make him an atheist. What we do know is that Hitler joined forces with the Christian Church in order to gain power. German fascists, like you Tim, were passionately anti-communist. After the First World War German socialists and communist came close to gaining power in Germany This worried Christian leaders and they were therefore willing to work with the fascists in order to prevent the left taking control.

This was especially true of the Catholic Centre Party (BVP). Formed in 1871 it originally the party sought to defend Catholic interests against the predominantly Protestant policies of Otto von Bismarck. However, it later became more concerned with the growth of socialism and communism in Germany.

By 1930 it was the third largest party in Germany: Socialists (143), Nazis (107) and BVP (87). In the November 1932 election the Nazi’s won 196 seats. However, they still did not hold a majority as the Socialists won 121 and the Communists 100. To form a government Hitler had to invite the BVP to join his government and its leader, Franz von Papen became vice-chancellor. On 23rd March, 1933, all members of the BVP in the Reichstag voted for the Enabling Bill which gave Hitler dictatorial powers.

Without the support of the Catholic Church, Hitler could never have gained power. After taking dictatorial powers Hitler arrested all left-wing and trade union activists and placed them into concentration camps.
The Protestant nor the Catholic Church complained about this. Nor did they make a fuss about the persecution of the Jews. You mentioned Dietrich Bonhoffer but he was working in London in the early 1930s.

The Christian resistance towards the Nazis began in 1934. However, it had nothing to do with the persecution of Jews and Socialists. It started over the Hitler’s appointment of Ludwig Muller, as the country's Reich Bishop of the Protestant Church. With the support of Karl Barth, a professor of theology at Bonn University, in May, 1934, these rebel pastors formed what became known as the Confessional Church. Some of these did begin arguing against anti-Semitism but this was not their primary concern. It was the formation of the Confessional Church that brought Dietrich Bonhoffer back to Germany.

Martin Niemöller, a member of the Nazi Party, who joined the Confessional Church, explained the situation in Germany in his famous poem that was written in 1946.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.

The Christian Church had a terrible record in Germany during the 1930s. All the major leaders decided not to take a stand against Nazism. The Catholic Church had the worst record of all.

Pope Pius XII refused to speak out against the atrocities being carried out in Nazi Germany. Nor did he do anything to save the Jews in Rome. He also refused the request of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in September 1942 to denounce the Nazi persecution of the Jews in Europe.

Pius XII was also criticised for his failure to act in Croatia during the Second World War. Croatia, a Catholic state, was responsible for the killing of 487,000 Orthodox Serbs, 27,000 Gypsies and around 30,000 Jews between 1941 and 1945.

For more information on this subject see:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERchristianity.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERcentre.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERpiusX2.htm

Sorry, I must have missed something. I thought Tim was saying, in reply to Daffyd, that he had read that Hitler was atheist. What does that have to do with the admittedly dark record of all churches, including my own, in collaborating with Hitler? Does that make him a Christian? You've lost me somewhere along the line.

Tim did make a good point in observing that many Christian did oppose Hitler, even to the extent of sacrificing their own lives. Many of them did so from the standpoint of their religious beliefs.

Hitler's personal beliefs were, I believe, somewhat bizarre, being a mixture of Norse mythological folk religion and some sort of Mother Earth thing. Certainly they were in no way Christian.

Mussolini was even more forthright in his rejection of the whole concept of God and frequently declared himself an atheist, despite signing the Lateran Pacts with the pope.

I understand that it makes a lovely debating point to say that Bush proclaims his Christianity and is bad therefore Hitler, since he was bad, must also have been a fundamentalist Christian, but it's hardly good history....

By the way, I was recently threatened with excommunication from the Forum for having failed to provide a photograph. I note that there are STILL some contributors to this debate who remain photoless. Is this another example of some pigs being more equal than others, or is it a "politcal conspiracy"? I think we should be told!

I would prefer my 'leader' if I must have one to be rational therefore not to believe in any god. There are simply far too many examples of the terrible consequences of organised religion to believe otherwise.

For those who have an interest in understanding who the people in Germany that helped the Holocaust victims, the following is a contribution:

http://ehsli.org/publish.php?page=publish&option=7



"Who were the rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe and why did they do what they did? Why would anyone put his or her own life in danger for the sake of someone who was a stranger?

Social psychologist Eva Fogelman sought to find the answers. Fogelman, a founding director of the Jewish Foundation for Christian Rescuers and co-director of Psychotherapy with Generations of the Holocaust and Related Traumas, wanted to know whether there were factors held in common by those who saved Jews. She wondered if the rescuers were a particular nationality, social class, religion, political affiliation or gender.

No, is her answer.

Some were intensely religious, others atheists, and others non-practicing Christians. Rescuers came from all classes and occupations -- farmers, executives, doctors, blacksmiths, social workers, dressmakers. Gender and politics were not factors either.

So, if none of these were determinants, what was?

Character, she says.

'[It was not] just a haphazard collection of individuals who chanced to rescue Jews, but people who have surprisingly similar humanistic values. It was not a whim that led these people to risk their lives and those of their families, but a response . . . that came from core values developed and instilled in them in childhood,' Fogelman said at a speech at an Amnesty International Chapter on Long Island.

As children they experienced one or more of the following: a nurturing, loving home; an altruistic parent or beloved caretaker; a tolerance for people who were different; a childhood illness or loss that tested their resilience; an emphasis upon independence, discipline with explanations, and caring.

The values they shared were altruism, independence of mind and respect for differences among people. As children, the rescuers were taught these principles as part of daily living. "This made virtue a habit," says Fogelman. She tells us that the parents of some of the rescuers had involved them in helping others by bringing food to a sick person or sleeping over at a house where a neighbor was about to give birth and her husband was not there.

Fogelman says, "Learned altruistic behavior, seeing all people as equals, gave the rescuers the ability to transcend the propaganda against the Jews and to see them as human beings just like themselves. They took the responsibility to help because they knew that unless they did something that person would die." "

Gavin wrote:

I would prefer my 'leader' if I must have one to be rational therefore not to believe in any god.

Gavin, it is completely irrational of you to believe that a rational person cannot believe in God!


Intended as a separate post; annoying to me that this can apparently no longer be done.


John wrote:

"German fascists, like you Tim, were passionately anti-communist." {emphasis supplied.}

What in the world is this remark supposed to mean? That if a person is a passionate anti-Communist he or she is philosophically close to German fascists? If that is what you mean, it constitutes one of the more absurd comments you have ever made (and considering the absurdity of many of your comments, that is saying something!).

And as you know there was a temporary alliance between Hitler and Stalin.

Hitler and Stalin were both bloodthirsty tyrants. It is shame democratic countries had to unite with Stalin's Soviet Union to defeat Hitler. To me, that is similar to the morality of the CIA partnering with the Mafia in an attempt to kill Castro. Stalin had no more morality than one of the Mafia killers.

And by the way can we infer from your sentence that you were not a passionate anti-communist? I have never called you a communist (and do not do so now) but it is rare to ever see you criticizing any communist regime so it would be easy to assume that you were (are?) at least sympathetic to communism.

At this point, in order to stop sounding like some uneducated ranter, one would provide evidence (non-CIA) of Stalin being 'bloodthirsty'.


The USA and the UK are/were NOT democracies, and lagged a long way behind the USSR in democratic principles.



You are spiralling now, and your saxophone is out of tune.



Thank you Senator McCarthy.

Thank you for that John. Highly enlightening. Much of my website concerns resistance to tyrannical governments. In fact, I have spent much of my life researching this area of history. My views on the subject mirror those above.

It is true that individual Christians have often played an important role in this resistance. However, just as many atheists took part in this resistance. You can see this by studying the biographies of these people who resisted racial prejudice in Germany, Europe and the United States.


http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERresistance.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWresistance.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FRresist.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcivilrights.htm


When you study government led racial discrimination in places like Germany, South Africa and the United States, one of the things that strikes you is the way the established Church supports this persecution. When Christians do resist they do it as individuals or as part of a non-conformist tradition. In the cases of South Africa and the United States, so-called Christians were at the forefront of this persecution.

The reason for this is that Christian belief is highly adaptable. In all cases, it has adapted to political, economic and cultural factors and has therefore become part of the dominant ideology. Although I have a great deal of admiration for individual Christians, I have no respect for the established Church. The history of the 20th century reveals that Christianity is part of the problem and not the solution.

Over the last few years the established Church in Europe (but not the United States) has made an attempt to stand up for the poor and oppressed. However, it is far too late. It failed when it mattered in Germany, South Africa and the United States. The sad fact is that most Christians are more like Tim Gratz than Martin Luther King.

Dafydd wrote:

The USA and the UK are/were NOT democracies, and lagged a long way behind the USSR in democratic principles.

This is the single most preposterous statement I have ever read on this Forum, and that says a lot! It is absolutely unbelievable!!

Who elected Stalin? I know who elected Churchill and Roosevelt.

In Roosevelt's case that would be the highly representative 'Electoral College' that did so, not the population of the USA. However, perhaps you mean Teddy rather than Frankie-Baby. Please expand.

Could you tell me who elected Churchill in 1940?

BTW Stalin was not 'leader' of the USSR

If a leader can make such an irrational decision to believe in a god what other irrational decisions are they capable of? This is my point. If they are devoutly religious then many of their decisions and actions are therefore grounded in irrationality.

Thanks to Mike for the source of that remark which I have used without acknowledgement in the past.

Religion was used extensively both by the aristocracy as a justification for their divine rights and by the corporations in their quest for profits in the third world. This is briefly summarised in the phrase, "when the white man came to Africa he had the bible and we owned all of the land. We closed our eyes in prayer and found that we had the bible and he owned most of the land." An idea so commonplace it has been attributed to a number of African liberation movements.

And Bush and Blair will use their religious faith as a justification for pinching Iraq's oil and when it suits them they will use their personal version of "democracy" for the same ends.

John, I think it's important, as you do, to recognise that the term 'christians' includes a wide range of people and groupings.

Of course first there is christ himself, and his word and action from the bible.

Then there is a long history of churches and splintergroups. there have been periods of time when exteremely radical groups flourished and were stomped out by an often corrupt papacy.

In Germany there were many groups as well.

William Donovan (OSS, Nuremburg) left a huge set of volumes of transcripts, documents, photo's etc when he died. They stayed on his shelves until recognised and donated to the Cornell Law library.

" When Donovan left Germany, he took the documents, had them bound in blue leather and installed them in his Manhattan law office, later called Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine. The collection remained there long after Donovan died in 1959. When the firm closed in 1998, its partners sought a new home for the volumes. One young lawyer, Jonathan Rauchway (Cornell '93), a young associate at Donovan, Leisure, and former summer associate of Henry Korn, informed Korn about the availability of Donovan's papers. Henry Korn, B.A. '68, and his wife, Ellen Schaum Korn, B.S. '68, acquired the collection, and generously donated it to the Cornell Law Library, to enhance its considerable international human rights holdings."

Amongst them is a large (40 mb PDF file) available that discusses this issue(1945). I haven't read it all. But it seems that depending on which groups of christians one looks at there was serious opposition to Hitler as early as early 20s. Hitler and his party also had a policy towards christianity that seemed to be tempered only by conventional sympathies. The long term objective seemed to end up with a final solution here as well. groups of christians were relocated, marginalised and dispossessed. There was a section of society that sought to reconcile their faith with Nazism, and the German Christian church seems to have done this. Not unlike the Methodists in South USA blessing KKK rallies. This does not reflect on christ, but on man.

There is also a large document on a psychological profile on Hitler produced before the end of the war that predicted as a possibility his suicide. His animosity towards any other than worship of man is clear through his writings and speech.

(There is also a transcript of an interview with the imprisoned Goering. He clearly lays the reason for defeat at the feet of the defenders of Stalingrad. He states that if Hitler had not attacked Russia, the development of the jet engine and other technological advances could have been speeded up.)

It is my view that religion is consumed at different levels of mental health. For healthy people religious ideology is consumed as containing useful psychological information "do unto others..." "Love thy neighbour" etc.

At lower levels of mental health the individual (or country or community) is unable to function without incontestable "rules" governing their behaviour and activity. This is where we find fundamentalism. Fundamentalists also tend to use their religion to project what they don't like about themselves - hence the fixation with sexuality and sexual morality.

Andy it is not a "fixation" with sexual morality.

Rather it is a belief that God Himself created the family as the cornerstone of society. An intact two parent family is clearly the best way to nurture and raise children.

Fundamentalists also believe that (and the Bible teaches) that God intended his gift of sex to be solely within marriage and of course one of the Commandments prohibits adultery.

There is abundant sociological evidence that when the family breaks down society itself suffers.

Even if there was no God, following the rules of sexual morality and the preservation of the family unit would be worthwhile.

Oh yes it is...



If that's what he believed, why didn't he stay with Mary rather than leave it so poor carpenter to bring up his son?

It's so clear that Bush, Blair and many others from an 'intact two-parent family' have been responsible for millions of deaths.



Abundant sociological evidence??? Like, er, where?? The rules of sexual morality (as espoused by various religious communities) deny the humanity of many, are massively out of step with the modern world in which people live rather longer than the 35 odd years they could expect to live before modern science stepped in.

It's the imposition of sexual morality (increasingly by the press) that leads to many difficulties of government. Did, for example, Clinton's 'activities' make him a bad leader, or any worse than he already was? For John Major, his 'activities' may have actually added to his reputation. Both have been vilified for them.

Repressed sexuality is actually a route to insanity. That some christians repress their own sexuality, Tim, might lead them to insanity.

The Heritage Foundation has complied a whole series of summaries of the sociological studies that have appeared in various peer-reviewed journals.

Children raised in non-intact families have, for instance, a much higher crime rate than children raised in the type of families that God ordained.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan was prescient when he attributed many of the problems in the black community to the break-down of the family. And that break-down was accelerated by some of the social welfare legislation of the sixties.

By the way, where in the world do you get the statistic that Bush and Blair have been responsible for "millions" of deaths? (Which of course is irrelevant to the discussion. More relevant: every presidential assassin came from a fatherless home.)

Hm … the Heritage Foundation isn't exactly a neutral, scientific body, though, is it.

Scandinavian societies traditionally have a very low incidence of marriage, and a very high incidence of single-parent families … and generally very stable family life, with low incidences of social problems (including teenage pregnancies and abortions). Having the wealth of the society more evenly divided certainly seems to have something to do with this, but long-term cultural factors probably have a role to play too.

Scandinavia was always sparsely-populated, so there often were insufficient priests to go round, in the days when these societies were still religious. However, children were still needed to be born (to work on the farms!), so it was quite common for the priest to come round every couple of years and 'regularise' all the relationships. One consequence of this was that couples who failed to produce children could often just separate amicably, without having to get into drawn-out fights about property and inheritance (which are what marriage is really all about, isn't it - the property and the inheritance, that is, not the fights!).

When the Scandinavian societies became secular and threw off the dead hand of the church, stigmatisation of unmarried mothers quickly disappeared. Astrid Lindgren, for example, who wrote Pippi Longstocking, had an illegitimate son when she was 18 in the 1920s, but carried on with her life anyway. It took until the late 1950s, though before the attribution of 'illegitimate' to a child really lost its meaning.

An exercise I often use to introduce visiting Americans to Sweden is to show them a picture from the local paper of a family, who are all dressed up, and are usually photographed in some area of natural beauty. Americans rarely guess that these are wedding pictures … and that the bridesmaids and pages are the couple's own children. If people get married at all (and far fewer than 50% of them bother), they usually wait until the children are 9 or 10. It's also becoming more and more common for the husband to take the wife's family name, rather than the other way around … and it's also common for each person to just keep the name they were born with, despite being married. Homosexual couples are now allowed to adopt children too, although this still isn't that common.

So … if the proposition is that it's the one-parent families, or divorced families that are somehow causing the social problems, the example of Scandinavia seems to disprove that. It would seem more likely on this evidence that social problems stem from the economic structures of society than from the types of relationships people have.