One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".
What's hilarious as an atheist is that I see far more similarities (both good and bad) between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions it has evolved from. Many of the quotes both the "Islam is good" and "Islam is bad" crowd selectively quote are really translations of passages from the Old Testament.
Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.
The difference is, of course, is that the Old Testament has been superceded by the New Testament, and the teachings of Jesus Christ. That is why Muslims and religious Jews still hold to antiquated dietary requirements and we do not. It is also why Christianity, uniquely of the three, teaches that aggressions should be met with turning the other cheek, and why politics and religion should be kept in separate spheres.
One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".
What's hilarious as an atheist is that I see far more similarities (both good and bad) between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions it has evolved from. Many of the quotes both the "Islam is good" and "Islam is bad" crowd selectively quote are really translations of passages from the Old Testament.
Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.
Right.
So why are so many muslims heading for rich Christian countries rather than the rich muslim ones on their doorsteps ?
Because economics has bugger all to do with religion?
If liking a nation was a key determinant of power than Ireland and Canada would be superpowers!
It is just one of many determinants. Power is, of course, defined by the ability to influence events to your liking. In international relations, a major part of that is by having a web of alliances. Among democracies, the most common political system in the world today, those alliances are determined to a large degree by how positive people feel about you. Despite the USA and China having similar sized economies, the USA has more power currently because many more medium-sized powers feel the USA shares similar values to them than China does. This is the reason why Western Europe has been in the USA camp for a long time. It is the reason why Eastern Europe has flocked to be in the USA camp. And it is the reason why a bunch of East Asian nations are looking to the USA for protection from China. When the USA had George W. Bush at the helm, and no-one wanted to be associated with him, the USA became weaker. Since he left, the European-US alliance has become stronger again. Because the USA is more liked again.
Of course, being liked is not much good on its own. But on top of economic and military strength, it is a powerful thing.
Indeed and by 2050 I venture far more people will still be trying to emigrate to the U.S. than China
If liking a nation was a key determinant of power than Ireland and Canada would be superpowers!
It is just one of many determinants. Power is, of course, defined by the ability to influence events to your liking. In international relations, a major part of that is by having a web of alliances. Among democracies, the most common political system in the world today, those alliances are determined to a large degree by how positive people feel about you. Despite the USA and China having similar sized economies, the USA has more power currently because many more medium-sized powers feel the USA shares similar values to them than China does. This is the reason why Western Europe has been in the USA camp for a long time. It is the reason why Eastern Europe has flocked to be in the USA camp. And it is the reason why a bunch of East Asian nations are looking to the USA for protection from China. When the USA had George W. Bush at the helm, and no-one wanted to be associated with him, the USA became weaker. Since he left, the European-US alliance has become stronger again. Because the USA is more liked again.
Of course, being liked is not much good on its own. But on top of economic and military strength, it is a powerful thing.
One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".
What's hilarious as an atheist is that I see far more similarities (both good and bad) between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions it has evolved from. Many of the quotes both the "Islam is good" and "Islam is bad" crowd selectively quote are really translations of passages from the Old Testament.
Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.
And if both faiths manage to kill millions more in the coming years, they may even catch up with atheism in the head count stakes.
They have not been that many major killings that I know of in the name of atheism, the Khmer Rouge comes closest. Claiming people being killed in the name of communism is actually atheism is like claiming people being killed in the name of fascism is actually Christianity.
One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".
What's hilarious as an atheist is that I see far more similarities (both good and bad) between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions it has evolved from. Many of the quotes both the "Islam is good" and "Islam is bad" crowd selectively quote are really translations of passages from the Old Testament.
Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.
You strike me as the classic liberal atheist who just doesn't "get" religion. You cannot comprehend it, so your opinions on the subject are, practically speaking, worthless - especially when it comes to a fundamentalist faith which admits no logic.
Might as well ask a deaf person to rate his favourite composers.
Is not the principal difference between christendom and the realm of islam economic rather than theological?
One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".
What's hilarious as an atheist is that I see far more similarities (both good and bad) between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions it has evolved from. Many of the quotes both the "Islam is good" and "Islam is bad" crowd selectively quote are really translations of passages from the Old Testament.
Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.
Right.
So why are so many muslims heading for rich Christian countries rather than the rich muslim ones on their doorsteps ?
Because economics has bugger all to do with religion?
Au contraire the cultural background of a host country is probably as important as the money. If money were all the Gulf States would be bursting with refugees.
If liking a nation was a key determinant of power than Ireland and Canada would be superpowers!
It is just one of many determinants. Power is, of course, defined by the ability to influence events to your liking. In international relations, a major part of that is by having a web of alliances. Among democracies, the most common political system in the world today, those alliances are determined to a large degree by how positive people feel about you. Despite the USA and China having similar sized economies, the USA has more power currently because many more medium-sized powers feel the USA shares similar values to them than China does. This is the reason why Western Europe has been in the USA camp for a long time. It is the reason why Eastern Europe has flocked to be in the USA camp. And it is the reason why a bunch of East Asian nations are looking to the USA for protection from China. When the USA had George W. Bush at the helm, and no-one wanted to be associated with him, the USA became weaker. Since he left, the European-US alliance has become stronger again. Because the USA is more liked again.
Of course, being liked is not much good on its own. But on top of economic and military strength, it is a powerful thing.
Where to even begin with this mess...
If you don't have anything to add but rudeness, it is generally a good idea to remain quiet.
One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".
What's hilarious as an atheist is that I see far more similarities (both good and bad) between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions it has evolved from. Many of the quotes both the "Islam is good" and "Islam is bad" crowd selectively quote are really translations of passages from the Old Testament.
Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.
The difference is, of course, is that the Old Testament has been superceded by the New Testament, and the teachings of Jesus Christ. That is why Muslims and religious Jews still hold to antiquated dietary requirements and we do not.
While in contrast the early peaceful verses of the Koran ("there shall be no compulsion in religion") are superseded by the more violent and intolerant verses.
Anyone who thinks that Islam and Christianity are very much alike has not studied theology, history or current affairs very thouroughly!
One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".
What's hilarious as an atheist is that I see far more similarities (both good and bad) between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions it has evolved from. Many of the quotes both the "Islam is good" and "Islam is bad" crowd selectively quote are really translations of passages from the Old Testament.
Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.
The difference is, of course, is that the Old Testament has been superceded by the New Testament, and the teachings of Jesus Christ. That is why Muslims and religious Jews still hold to antiquated dietary requirements and we do not. It is also why Christianity, uniquely of the three, teaches that aggressions should be met with turning the other cheek, and why politics and religion should be kept in separate spheres.
In my limited understanding of Islam it also includes bits of the New Testament too and counts Jesus as one of their own prophets.
The notion of "turning the other cheek" being what is taught depends upon who is doing the teaching. The problem with the Bible and all other equivalents is that it has evolved over millenia and is full of contradictions. A pastor can selectively quote "turn the other cheek" or can selectively quote the exact opposite. From New or Old.
One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".
What's hilarious as an atheist is that I see far more similarities (both good and bad) between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions it has evolved from. Many of the quotes both the "Islam is good" and "Islam is bad" crowd selectively quote are really translations of passages from the Old Testament.
Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.
The difference is, of course, is that the Old Testament has been superceded by the New Testament, and the teachings of Jesus Christ. That is why Muslims and religious Jews still hold to antiquated dietary requirements and we do not. It is also why Christianity, uniquely of the three, teaches that aggressions should be met with turning the other cheek, and why politics and religion should be kept in separate spheres.
In my limited understanding of Islam it also includes bits of the New Testament too and counts Jesus as one of their own prophets.
The notion of "turning the other cheek" being what is taught depends upon who is doing the teaching. The problem with the Bible and all other equivalents is that it has evolved over millenia and is full of contradictions. A pastor can selectively quote "turn the other cheek" or can selectively quote the exact opposite. From New or Old.
While Islam has embraced Jesus as a prophet, it has done so in a way that has failed to incorporate his message, and also changes the events so that he never made the final sacrifice. It thus can not be said to be influenced by Christianity to any large degree.
What contradiction to 'turn the other cheek' exists in the New Testament?
One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".
What's hilarious as an atheist is that I see far more similarities (both good and bad) between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions it has evolved from. Many of the quotes both the "Islam is good" and "Islam is bad" crowd selectively quote are really translations of passages from the Old Testament.
Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.
Right.
So why are so many muslims heading for rich Christian countries rather than the rich muslim ones on their doorsteps ?
Because economics has bugger all to do with religion?
What an incredibly stupid remark. There is a reason Protestant Europe is richer than Catholic Europe. For an apparently clever person you are seriously dim.
Much of the famous Protestant Work Ethic is cultural and not religious. It is simplistic to explain it away with religion, I am smart enough to see it is but a small factor.
One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".
What's hilarious as an atheist is that I see far more similarities (both good and bad) between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions it has evolved from. Many of the quotes both the "Islam is good" and "Islam is bad" crowd selectively quote are really translations of passages from the Old Testament.
Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.
Right.
So why are so many muslims heading for rich Christian countries rather than the rich muslim ones on their doorsteps ?
Because economics has bugger all to do with religion?
What an incredibly stupid remark. There is a reason Protestant Europe is richer than Catholic Europe. For an apparently clever person you are seriously dim.
Much of the famous Protestant Work Ethic is cultural and not religious. It is simplistic to explain it away with religion, I am smart enough to see it is but a small factor.
So what caused the difference in culture, if not religion?
Going to be meant in the future. As for currently - I'd say arguably so. It will be unarguably so in 50 years time though. "Drunks on zimmerframes" is a great analogy for Russia's future.
I think you've crossed the border of optimism and are making good time for delusion.
IMF figures for GDP in 2014: Russian GDP: $1.857 trillion British GDP: $2.945 trillion
Russian GDP per capita: $12,926 British GDP per capita: $45,653
Call me optimistic if you will but I'd rather be British than Russian.
So would I, one 100 percent, but my patriotism leads me to look rationally at the circumstances with a view to supporting future improvement, rather than deluding myself.
It is not delusion to say we are arguably more powerful than a nation that we have 50% more GDP than. If we're not more powerful than a nation with less than two-thirds of our national income then we have a problem - and if you're unwilling to see the truth from the propaganda then you have a problem.
Gdp is far from the only component of power. Japan is not a particularly powerful country because business is the onlymeans it has of translating that economic output into power. Russia remains powerful for the opposite reason. The USA will remain the world's premier state for some time after China overtakes it in gdp for all sorts of legacy reasons that come with Top Nation status: reserve currency, language, film and music, international bases, and so on.
One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".
What's hilarious as an atheist is that I see far more similarities (both good and bad) between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions it has evolved from. Many of the quotes both the "Islam is good" and "Islam is bad" crowd selectively quote are really translations of passages from the Old Testament.
Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.
And if both faiths manage to kill millions more in the coming years, they may even catch up with atheism in the head count stakes.
They have not been that many major killings that I know of in the name of atheism, the Khmer Rouge comes closest. Claiming people being killed in the name of communism is actually atheism is like claiming people being killed in the name of fascism is actually Christianity.
I'm including those killed by Nazism too. We have ample examples of what happens when man tries to replace God. In Nazi Germany he was replaced with a cult of personality and folkish superstition infused with race 'science'. Marx and the communists replaced him with the 'perfect' state. In every circumstance, people become something to be pushed aside in pursuit of a flawed vision. Mass death follows.
One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".
What's hilarious as an atheist is that I see far more similarities (both good and bad) between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions it has evolved from. Many of the quotes both the "Islam is good" and "Islam is bad" crowd selectively quote are really translations of passages from the Old Testament.
Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.
Right.
So why are so many muslims heading for rich Christian countries rather than the rich muslim ones on their doorsteps ?
Because economics has bugger all to do with religion?
What an incredibly stupid remark. There is a reason Protestant Europe is richer than Catholic Europe. For an apparently clever person you are seriously dim.
Much of the famous Protestant Work Ethic is cultural and not religious. It is simplistic to explain it away with religion, I am smart enough to see it is but a small factor.
One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".
What's hilarious as an atheist is that I see far more similarities (both good and bad) between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions it has evolved from. Many of the quotes both the "Islam is good" and "Islam is bad" crowd selectively quote are really translations of passages from the Old Testament.
Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.
The difference is, of course, is that the Old Testament has been superceded by the New Testament, and the teachings of Jesus Christ. That is why Muslims and religious Jews still hold to antiquated dietary requirements and we do not. It is also why Christianity, uniquely of the three, teaches that aggressions should be met with turning the other cheek, and why politics and religion should be kept in separate spheres.
Err the historical argument is that Christian Western Europe had the Age of Enlightenment (Reason) from the 1620s to the 1780s in which cultural and intellectual forces in Western Europe emphasized reason, analysis, and individualism rather than traditional lines of authority . this had a fundamental impact of how Europe came to be Governed .
Whereas Muslim countries are basically tied up in the State must reflect the religion and both are inextricably linked and logic pays no part in political thinking.
Add to that the Protestant "work ethic" and you have a huge difference in outlook.
If the Arab settlements in Israel had been Protestant, it is likely by now they would be an economic powerhouse rather than a cesspit of underemployed people prone to terrorism.
One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".
What's hilarious as an atheist is that I see far more similarities (both good and bad) between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions it has evolved from. Many of the quotes both the "Islam is good" and "Islam is bad" crowd selectively quote are really translations of passages from the Old Testament.
Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.
Right.
So why are so many muslims heading for rich Christian countries rather than the rich muslim ones on their doorsteps ?
Because economics has bugger all to do with religion?
What an incredibly stupid remark. There is a reason Protestant Europe is richer than Catholic Europe. For an apparently clever person you are seriously dim.
Much of the famous Protestant Work Ethic is cultural and not religious. It is simplistic to explain it away with religion, I am smart enough to see it is but a small factor.
So what caused the difference in culture, if not religion?
History is complicated. Religion is a factor, a significant one at some times, but absolutely not the be all and end all.
As for Sean's remarks. I "get" religion. Religion is a significant construct that man has invented both in part to explain the world and as a set of rules to live by, it has evolved over time. Those who refuse to see how religion has evolved over time are the ones who don't "get" it.
One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".
What's hilarious as an atheist is that I see far more similarities (both good and bad) between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions it has evolved from. Many of the quotes both the "Islam is good" and "Islam is bad" crowd selectively quote are really translations of passages from the Old Testament.
Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.
And if both faiths manage to kill millions more in the coming years, they may even catch up with atheism in the head count stakes.
They have not been that many major killings that I know of in the name of atheism, the Khmer Rouge comes closest. Claiming people being killed in the name of communism is actually atheism is like claiming people being killed in the name of fascism is actually Christianity.
I'm including those killed by Nazism too. We have ample examples of what happens when man tries to replace God. In Nazi Germany he was replaced with a cult of personality and folkish superstition infused with race 'science'. Marx and the communists replaced him with the 'perfect' state. In every circumstance, people become something to be pushed aside in pursuit of a flawed vision. Mass death follows.
Well that's idiotic as the Nazi's were Christians. Moron.
One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".
What's hilarious as an atheist is that I see far more similarities (both good and bad) between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions it has evolved from. Many of the quotes both the "Islam is good" and "Islam is bad" crowd selectively quote are really translations of passages from the Old Testament.
Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.
Right.
So why are so many muslims heading for rich Christian countries rather than the rich muslim ones on their doorsteps ?
Because economics has bugger all to do with religion?
What an incredibly stupid remark. There is a reason Protestant Europe is richer than Catholic Europe. For an apparently clever person you are seriously dim.
Although catholic Bavaria is the richest part of Germany
Surely only a matter of time* before we see those types of banners at Ibrox.
*millennia
Refugees should be welcome, and the goverment have been seemingly daftly inept and inactive about the whole thing. If Labour weren't currently in meltdown we might've had a few pieces saying that despite the pick me up of the election win, Cameron's government can be unbelievably lethargic in the manner of a tired one (see also the curious case of IDS not actually studying the after effects of policies intensely).
In order to solve this we need a far bigger border force and to get things on an even keel where possible with peacekeepers - it may be impossible to attack Assad or ISIS in Syria (although as ISIS is more unequivocally awful even than Saddam it may not be Iraq redux) and Iraq because of the quagmire (albeit a dry one) you'd be wandering into, but Europe really needs to put more funding into North Africa if it wants people to stop going on these boats.
One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".
What's hilarious as an atheist is that I see far more similarities (both good and bad) between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions it has evolved from. Many of the quotes both the "Islam is good" and "Islam is bad" crowd selectively quote are really translations of passages from the Old Testament.
Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.
Right.
So why are so many muslims heading for rich Christian countries rather than the rich muslim ones on their doorsteps ?
Because economics has bugger all to do with religion?
What an incredibly stupid remark. There is a reason Protestant Europe is richer than Catholic Europe. For an apparently clever person you are seriously dim.
Much of the famous Protestant Work Ethic is cultural and not religious. It is simplistic to explain it away with religion, I am smart enough to see it is but a small factor.
I wonder what it was that created the culture?
Ironically in large part it was de-emphasising religion as the be all and end all as the Roman Catholic Church had done.
One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".
What's hilarious as an atheist is that I see far more similarities (both good and bad) between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions it has evolved from. Many of the quotes both the "Islam is good" and "Islam is bad" crowd selectively quote are really translations of passages from the Old Testament.
Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.
And if both faiths manage to kill millions more in the coming years, they may even catch up with atheism in the head count stakes.
They have not been that many major killings that I know of in the name of atheism, the Khmer Rouge comes closest. Claiming people being killed in the name of communism is actually atheism is like claiming people being killed in the name of fascism is actually Christianity.
I'm including those killed by Nazism too. We have ample examples of what happens when man tries to replace God. In Nazi Germany he was replaced with a cult of personality and folkish superstition infused with race 'science'. Marx and the communists replaced him with the 'perfect' state. In every circumstance, people become something to be pushed aside in pursuit of a flawed vision. Mass death follows.
Well you shouldn't. Nazi Germany was nominally Christian and you can't change that just because it wasn't a particularly strong component of its identity.
Considering atheism as a bloc in the way of religions (or sub-religion sects) is as daft as considering non-Chelsea supporters to all be the same. There are lots of lazy atheists, lots who who are ardent like Dawkins, and so on. There's no unifying creed, book or authority figure, unlike religion.
Considering atheism as a bloc in the way of religions (or sub-religion sects) is as daft as considering non-Chelsea supporters to all be the same. There are lots of lazy atheists, lots who who are ardent like Dawkins, and so on. There's no unifying creed, book or authority figure, unlike religion.
One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".
What's hilarious as an atheist is that I see far more similarities (both good and bad) between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions it has evolved from. Many of the quotes both the "Islam is good" and "Islam is bad" crowd selectively quote are really translations of passages from the Old Testament.
Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.
Right.
So why are so many muslims heading for rich Christian countries rather than the rich muslim ones on their doorsteps ?
Because economics has bugger all to do with religion?
What an incredibly stupid remark. There is a reason Protestant Europe is richer than Catholic Europe. For an apparently clever person you are seriously dim.
Much of the famous Protestant Work Ethic is cultural and not religious. It is simplistic to explain it away with religion, I am smart enough to see it is but a small factor.
So what caused the difference in culture, if not religion?
History is complicated. Religion is a factor, a significant one at some times, but absolutely not the be all and end all.
As for Sean's remarks. I "get" religion. Religion is a significant construct that man has invented both in part to explain the world and as a set of rules to live by, it has evolved over time. Those who refuse to see how religion has evolved over time are the ones who don't "get" it.
So you've gone from saying "economics has bugger all to do with religion" to admitting that religion is "a significant factor" - within half an hour.
I don't know about evolving religions, but it seems your opinions can rapidly evolve after just thirty minutes of derision.
No I stand by it. Religion has evolved and how it evolves can affect how cultures evolve. But religion in and of itself has bugger all to do with it. We are rich and devolved due to our enlightenment which happened despite not because of religion.
One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".
What's hilarious as an atheist is that I see far more similarities (both good and bad) between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions it has evolved from. Many of the quotes both the "Islam is good" and "Islam is bad" crowd selectively quote are really translations of passages from the Old Testament.
Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.
Right.
So why are so many muslims heading for rich Christian countries rather than the rich muslim ones on their doorsteps ?
Because economics has bugger all to do with religion?
What an incredibly stupid remark. There is a reason Protestant Europe is richer than Catholic Europe. For an apparently clever person you are seriously dim.
Although catholic Bavaria is the richest part of Germany
I assume Northern Italy is also largely Catholic, and Catalonia.
Well you shouldn't. Nazi Germany was nominally Christian and you can't change that just because it wasn't a particularly strong component of its identity.
Yes I should. Hitler didn't come to power by revolution - he kissed a lot of babies and spoke before a lot of Catholic women's groups on the way up. The fact that he didn't close the Churches and shoot the clergy has no bearing whatever on the atheistic philosophy behind his regime and its actions.
Considering atheism as a bloc in the way of religions (or sub-religion sects) is as daft as considering non-Chelsea supporters to all be the same. There are lots of lazy atheists, lots who who are ardent like Dawkins, and so on. There's no unifying creed, book or authority figure, unlike religion.
There are lots of lazy and ardent Christians too. Non-Chelsea supporters are the same when looked at in terms of their Chelsea support or lack of.
Becker and Woessmann argue that Protestants were more successful because they had the advantage of a better and longer education. Further research has led them to conclude that the educational advantage began soon after Martin Luther broke away from the established Church in the 16th century and has continued to play its part in creating economic success throughout Europe.
Luther wanted women as well as men to be able to read the Bible, he points out. Not only did his followers set out to establish church schools in every parish, but girls went there as well as boys, he says. "We looked into the records of school building in the German federal state of Brandenburg in the 16th century, and discovered that there were disproportionately more girls in school than boys. Protestantism, it seems, was an early driver of emancipation. At that time, remember, Catholic areas didn't even have any boys' schools.
Well you shouldn't. Nazi Germany was nominally Christian and you can't change that just because it wasn't a particularly strong component of its identity.
Yes I should. Hitler didn't come to power by revolution - he kissed a lot of babies and spoke before a lot of Catholic women's groups on the way up. The fact that he didn't close the Churches and shoot the clergy has no bearing whatever on the atheistic philosophy behind his regime and its actions.
Hitler believed in a divine providence, so not really an atheist.
Mr. 1983, yes, but there are unifying features (belief in Jesus as Christ, isn't the Bible super, etc). I know there's a wide variety of views within religions, though some are more prone to fundamentalism than others, but they also have commonly held tents and unifying features which atheism (or agnosis) lack.
One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".
What's hilarious as an atheist is that I see far more similarities (both good and bad) between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions it has evolved from. Many of the quotes both the "Islam is good" and "Islam is bad" crowd selectively quote are really translations of passages from the Old Testament.
Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.
And if both faiths manage to kill millions more in the coming years, they may even catch up with atheism in the head count stakes.
They have not been that many major killings that I know of in the name of atheism, the Khmer Rouge comes closest. Claiming people being killed in the name of communism is actually atheism is like claiming people being killed in the name of fascism is actually Christianity.
I'm including those killed by Nazism too. We have ample examples of what happens when man tries to replace God. In Nazi Germany he was replaced with a cult of personality and folkish superstition infused with race 'science'. Marx and the communists replaced him with the 'perfect' state. In every circumstance, people become something to be pushed aside in pursuit of a flawed vision. Mass death follows.
Well that's idiotic as the Nazi's were Christians. Moron.
Sorry you feel the need to resort to personal insults, but I'll address your point.
There is not a single reputable scholar in the field of history who will say that the Nazis were Christians. I've studied the inter-war period at degree level, so I know a little about it. Hitler was a militant atheist; who tolerated the Church (albeit subverting with the Nazi idoelogy) merely because his regime depended on maintaining the social fabric of Germany - indeed being seen to be a bulwark against it's disintegration.
Well you shouldn't. Nazi Germany was nominally Christian and you can't change that just because it wasn't a particularly strong component of its identity.
Yes I should. Hitler didn't come to power by revolution - he kissed a lot of babies and spoke before a lot of Catholic women's groups on the way up. The fact that he didn't close the Churches and shoot the clergy has no bearing whatever on the atheistic philosophy behind his regime and its actions.
By 'atheistic philosophy' do you mean a philosophy that doesn't focus on the primacy of a god or a philosophy that actively rejects the existence of a god? You can promote the former without being an atheist.
Surely only a matter of time* before we see those types of banners at Ibrox.
*millennia
Refugees should be welcome, and the goverment have been seemingly daftly inept and inactive about the whole thing. If Labour weren't currently in meltdown we might've had a few pieces saying that despite the pick me up of the election win, Cameron's government can be unbelievably lethargic in the manner of a tired one (see also the curious case of IDS not actually studying the after effects of policies intensely).
In order to solve this we need a far bigger border force and to get things on an even keel where possible with peacekeepers - it may be impossible to attack Assad or ISIS in Syria (although as ISIS is more unequivocally awful even than Saddam it may not be Iraq redux) and Iraq because of the quagmire (albeit a dry one) you'd be wandering into, but Europe really needs to put more funding into North Africa if it wants people to stop going on these boats.
Indeed - further evidence of Little Britain not playing its part in dealing with the refugee crisis which we had a hand in creating :
As an aside, if anyone's interested in the interface embedded into islam between it and other religions at its birth, then I can recommend Tom Holland's 'In the Shadow of the Sword'
One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".
What's hilarious as an atheist is that I see far more similarities (both good and bad) between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions it has evolved from. Many of the quotes both the "Islam is good" and "Islam is bad" crowd selectively quote are really translations of passages from the Old Testament.
Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.
Right.
So why are so many muslims heading for rich Christian countries rather than the rich muslim ones on their doorsteps ?
Because economics has bugger all to do with religion?
What an incredibly stupid remark. There is a reason Protestant Europe is richer than Catholic Europe. For an apparently clever person you are seriously dim.
Although catholic Bavaria is the richest part of Germany
I assume Northern Italy is also largely Catholic, and Catalonia.
Catalonia and the Basque country are very Catholic. But it's a kind of civic Catholicism, very close to the local, industrial hierarchies rather than the aristocratic and military Spanish ones. In both places the church was instrumental in keeping the local languages alive during the Franco regime. In Catalonia during the dictatorship you'd hear Catalan at mass and at the Nou Camp, and that was about it - at least until towards the end.
Hitler believed in a divine providence, so not really an atheist.
Hitler used Christian terminology only when trying to convince Christians.
Here are some of Hitler's quotes:
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains...The war will be over one day. I shall then consider that my life's final task will be to solve the religious problem." [Hitler’s Table Talk, p. 142-4]
"Christianity is the biggest lie the Jews ever told humanity"
-- Adolf Hitler, 13 December 1941.
"So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death," -- Adolf Hitler, 14 October 1941.
"When National Socialism has ruled long enough, it will no longer be possible to conceive of a form of life different from ours. In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together…The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity." [Hitler's Table Talk, p. 6-7]
"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." [p. 51]
"Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that's why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline."[Hitler's Table Talk, pp 58-62]
"Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking 'You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?'" [Speer, Albert, Inside the Third Reich, Bonanza Books, New York, p. 96]
"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity." [Hitler's Table Talk, p. 75]
"The Jew who fraudulently introduced Christianity into the ancient world----in order to ruin it----re-opened the same breach in modern times, taking as his pretext the social question. Just as Saul became St. Paul, Mardochai has become Karl Marx." [p. 314]
As you see there is really no room for argument on this. The whole 'Hitler was a Christian' meme is one of the more despicably mendacious constructs of the militant secularist brigade. Expect to see a whole lot of sassy internet blog pieces endorsing this view - nothing serious.
All the above are good things to do, but in reality we need more.
To address productivity we need
1. Substantial investment in our infrastructure - roads ( can you still believe there is no motorway link between London and Edinburgh ? ), digital infrastucture and airports. Any survey you read says these are major obstacles to raising national output. 2. Structutal reform of dysfunctional markets in particular housing and banking. 3. Improved skill levels both at tertiary and secondary levels. The current Uni system in E&W is a mess there is nothing I can see in themedium term which says this will get better, its simply a graduate tax. Apprenticeships while going in the right direction still need a push and better linkage in with the Uni system. 4. Reform of capital allowances to encourage investment and bring offshored business back to the UK. Volume is one of the biggest drivers of productivity and the UK consistently ignores its importance. I'd suggest import substitution is lower hanging fruit than opening export markets.
Currently HMG is simply bobbing along with the economic cycle and trying to claim the credit from the upswing. This is no more valid than trying to claim it's the cycle's fault in 2011 when things were bad. The point of structural reformns is they take time to kick in, but when they do they are with you for the long term.
Been out myself and just back. I am painfully familiar with the road between Edinburgh and Newcastle. Over the last 20 years there has been a modest increase in the duelling but there are still significant sections which are two way, let alone motorway, particularly from Berwick to about 20 miles north of Newcastle. These sections are always chock-a-block with lorries, even on a Sunday afternoon. It is ridiculous.
I completely agree we need to give up this 50% University nonsense and do what we can to boost the attractiveness of skills based training both financially and in terms of prestige. Too many apprenticeships are just a source of cheap labour and do not produce the skills the economy needs.
I thought our capital allowance schemes were pretty competitive internationally but I agree we should be looking to provide both infrastructure and training to encourage import substitution connected with current output.
I think you are being a bit unfair to the government, not least as it is so hard to do many of these things when budgets are under extreme pressure but there is no doubt much more to do.
One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".
What's hilarious as an atheist is that I see far more similarities (both good and bad) between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions it has evolved from. Many of the quotes both the "Islam is good" and "Islam is bad" crowd selectively quote are really translations of passages from the Old Testament.
Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.
Right.
So why are so many muslims heading for rich Christian countries rather than the rich muslim ones on their doorsteps ?
Because economics has bugger all to do with religion?
What an incredibly stupid remark. There is a reason Protestant Europe is richer than Catholic Europe. For an apparently clever person you are seriously dim.
Although catholic Bavaria is the richest part of Germany
I assume Northern Italy is also largely Catholic, and Catalonia.
The richest part of Italy is the South Tyrol, which also - coincidentally or not - has probably the richest history of Italian Protestantism (though largely unknown outside the region)
Considering atheism as a bloc in the way of religions (or sub-religion sects) is as daft as considering non-Chelsea supporters to all be the same. There are lots of lazy atheists, lots who who are ardent like Dawkins, and so on. There's no unifying creed, book or authority figure, unlike religion.
There are lots of lazy and ardent Christians too. Non-Chelsea supporters are the same when looked at in terms of their Chelsea support or lack of.
Non-Chelsea supporters may still back them in a game if they're playinga club liked less.
Well you shouldn't. Nazi Germany was nominally Christian and you can't change that just because it wasn't a particularly strong component of its identity.
Yes I should. Hitler didn't come to power by revolution - he kissed a lot of babies and spoke before a lot of Catholic women's groups on the way up. The fact that he didn't close the Churches and shoot the clergy has no bearing whatever on the atheistic philosophy behind his regime and its actions.
By 'atheistic philosophy' do you mean a philosophy that doesn't focus on the primacy of a god or a philosophy that actively rejects the existence of a god? You can promote the former without being an atheist.
I believe Nazism was the latter. One of the hymns of the Hitler Youth had this stanza:
"NO EVIL PRIEST CAN PREVENT US FROM FEELING
THAT WE ARE THE CHILDREN OF ADOLPH HITLER
AWAY WITH THE INCENSE AND HOLY WATER
THE SWASTIKA BRINGS SALVATION ON EARTH"
Through organisations like the Hitler Youth, they were deliberately killing the Church slowly by demography. To have done so immediately by having clergy shot, Bibles burned etc. would have been utterly politically impossible.
Surely only a matter of time* before we see those types of banners at Ibrox.
*millennia
Refugees should be welcome, and the goverment have been seemingly daftly inept and inactive about the whole thing. If Labour weren't currently in meltdown we might've had a few pieces saying that despite the pick me up of the election win, Cameron's government can be unbelievably lethargic in the manner of a tired one (see also the curious case of IDS not actually studying the after effects of policies intensely).
In order to solve this we need a far bigger border force and to get things on an even keel where possible with peacekeepers - it may be impossible to attack Assad or ISIS in Syria (although as ISIS is more unequivocally awful even than Saddam it may not be Iraq redux) and Iraq because of the quagmire (albeit a dry one) you'd be wandering into, but Europe really needs to put more funding into North Africa if it wants people to stop going on these boats.
Indeed - further evidence of Little Britain not playing its part in dealing with the refugee crisis which we had a hand in creating :
How did we have a hand in creating the civil war in Syria?
How did we have a hand in creating the mess that is Eritrea?
I would submit that both are largely the result of the behaviour of their own governments.
Yes, we should help refugees - but specious moral blackmail is not a good reason.
Mr. 1983, yes, but there are unifying features (belief in Jesus as Christ, isn't the Bible super, etc). I know there's a wide variety of views within religions, though some are more prone to fundamentalism than others, but they also have commonly held tents and unifying features which atheism (or agnosis) lack.
And there are unifying beliefs (or lack of) amongst atheists.
One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".
What's hilarious as an atheist is that I see far more similarities (both good and bad) between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions it has evolved from. Many of the quotes both the "Islam is good" and "Islam is bad" crowd selectively quote are really translations of passages from the Old Testament.
Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.
Right.
So why are so many muslims heading for rich Christian countries rather than the rich muslim ones on their doorsteps ?
Because economics has bugger all to do with religion?
What an incredibly stupid remark. There is a reason Protestant Europe is richer than Catholic Europe. For an apparently clever person you are seriously dim.
Although catholic Bavaria is the richest part of Germany
I assume Northern Italy is also largely Catholic, and Catalonia.
The richest part of Italy is the South Tyrol, which also - coincidentally or not - has probably the richest history of Italian Protestantism (though largely unknown outside the region)
One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".
What's hilarious as an atheist is that I see far more similarities (both good and bad) between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions it has evolved from. Many of the quotes both the "Islam is good" and "Islam is bad" crowd selectively quote are really translations of passages from the Old Testament.
Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.
Right.
So why are so many muslims heading for rich Christian countries rather than the rich muslim ones on their doorsteps ?
Because economics has bugger all to do with religion?
What an incredibly stupid remark. There is a reason Protestant Europe is richer than Catholic Europe. For an apparently clever person you are seriously dim.
Although catholic Bavaria is the richest part of Germany
I assume Northern Italy is also largely Catholic, and Catalonia.
The richest part of Italy is the South Tyrol, which also - coincidentally or not - has probably the richest history of Italian Protestantism (though largely unknown outside the region)
It wasn't really part of Italy until after WW1, was it?
Nowhere was "part of Italy" until the later 19th century. Before Garibaldi the nation did not exist.
There was no political entity called Italy, but it was recognised as a geographical and cultural entity - hence the Risorgimento, Mazzini, Cavour, Graibaldi etc.
Mr. 1983, no, there aren't. There's a single non-belief.
There's no atheist Pope, Bible, church [either physical building or hierarchical organisation]. There are no atheist 10 Commandments, creeds, doctrines, precepts, pillars of faith etc etc.
I think Philip may be right so I am starting again.
The UK has a tendency to higher levels of private debt because of our housing market. A large share of the debt is mortgage debt and well secured.
You are right that inflation is currently very low but real wages have grown faster than debt over the last year. More importantly, there has been a considerable reduction in the rate of increase in the cost of houses.
It is possible that the BTL tax changes in the budget will significantly increase the supply of housing and lead to continued price moderation which will help with debt. A lot more building would also help although a weak housing market does not help that.
I wish people would stop pretending BTL affects the supply of housing. It does not. It may switch the balance between owner-occupied stock and rental stock, but there are still the same number of houses used for living in as before.
I fully accept that. I meant the supply of houses for sale, not the total stock.
Well you shouldn't. Nazi Germany was nominally Christian and you can't change that just because it wasn't a particularly strong component of its identity.
Yes I should. Hitler didn't come to power by revolution - he kissed a lot of babies and spoke before a lot of Catholic women's groups on the way up. The fact that he didn't close the Churches and shoot the clergy has no bearing whatever on the atheistic philosophy behind his regime and its actions.
By 'atheistic philosophy' do you mean a philosophy that doesn't focus on the primacy of a god or a philosophy that actively rejects the existence of a god? You can promote the former without being an atheist.
I believe Nazism was the latter. One of the hymns of the Hitler Youth had this stanza:
"NO EVIL PRIEST CAN PREVENT US FROM FEELING
THAT WE ARE THE CHILDREN OF ADOLPH HITLER
AWAY WITH THE INCENSE AND HOLY WATER
THE SWASTIKA BRINGS SALVATION ON EARTH"
Through organisations like the Hitler Youth, they were deliberately killing the Church slowly by demography. To have done so immediately by having clergy shot, Bibles burned etc. would have been utterly politically impossible.
The Wehrmacht still had "Gott mit Uns" buckles on their belts.
Well you shouldn't. Nazi Germany was nominally Christian and you can't change that just because it wasn't a particularly strong component of its identity.
Yes I should. Hitler didn't come to power by revolution - he kissed a lot of babies and spoke before a lot of Catholic women's groups on the way up. The fact that he didn't close the Churches and shoot the clergy has no bearing whatever on the atheistic philosophy behind his regime and its actions.
By 'atheistic philosophy' do you mean a philosophy that doesn't focus on the primacy of a god or a philosophy that actively rejects the existence of a god? You can promote the former without being an atheist.
I believe Nazism was the latter. One of the hymns of the Hitler Youth had this stanza:
"NO EVIL PRIEST CAN PREVENT US FROM FEELING
THAT WE ARE THE CHILDREN OF ADOLPH HITLER
AWAY WITH THE INCENSE AND HOLY WATER
THE SWASTIKA BRINGS SALVATION ON EARTH"
Through organisations like the Hitler Youth, they were deliberately killing the Church slowly by demography. To have done so immediately by having clergy shot, Bibles burned etc. would have been utterly politically impossible.
So that will have been sung by a future Pope!
The first and third lines would be at home in a chant at Ibrox.
Surely only a matter of time* before we see those types of banners at Ibrox.
*millennia
Refugees should be welcome, and the goverment have been seemingly daftly inept and inactive about the whole thing. If Labour weren't currently in meltdown we might've had a few pieces saying that despite the pick me up of the election win, Cameron's government can be unbelievably lethargic in the manner of a tired one (see also the curious case of IDS not actually studying the after effects of policies intensely).
In order to solve this we need a far bigger border force and to get things on an even keel where possible with peacekeepers - it may be impossible to attack Assad or ISIS in Syria (although as ISIS is more unequivocally awful even than Saddam it may not be Iraq redux) and Iraq because of the quagmire (albeit a dry one) you'd be wandering into, but Europe really needs to put more funding into North Africa if it wants people to stop going on these boats.
Indeed - further evidence of Little Britain not playing its part in dealing with the refugee crisis which we had a hand in creating :
Surely only a matter of time* before we see those types of banners at Ibrox.
*millennia
Refugees should be welcome, and the goverment have been seemingly daftly inept and inactive about the whole thing. If Labour weren't currently in meltdown we might've had a few pieces saying that despite the pick me up of the election win, Cameron's government can be unbelievably lethargic in the manner of a tired one (see also the curious case of IDS not actually studying the after effects of policies intensely).
In order to solve this we need a far bigger border force and to get things on an even keel where possible with peacekeepers - it may be impossible to attack Assad or ISIS in Syria (although as ISIS is more unequivocally awful even than Saddam it may not be Iraq redux) and Iraq because of the quagmire (albeit a dry one) you'd be wandering into, but Europe really needs to put more funding into North Africa if it wants people to stop going on these boats.
Indeed - further evidence of Little Britain not playing its part in dealing with the refugee crisis which we had a hand in creating :
How did we have a hand in creating the civil war in Syria?
How did we have a hand in creating the mess that is Eritrea?
I would submit that both are largely the result of the behaviour of their own governments.
Yes, we should help refugees - but specious moral blackmail is not a good reason.
1. Libya?
2. Had we not misguidedly supported (many would say fuelled) the Syrian Uprising as part of the fabled 'Arab Spring', Assad would have had it put down in the space of months. No refugee crisis.
Surely only a matter of time* before we see those types of banners at Ibrox.
*millennia
Refugees should be welcome, and the goverment have been seemingly daftly inept and inactive about the whole thing. If Labour weren't currently in meltdown we might've had a few pieces saying that despite the pick me up of the election win, Cameron's government can be unbelievably lethargic in the manner of a tired one (see also the curious case of IDS not actually studying the after effects of policies intensely).
In order to solve this we need a far bigger border force and to get things on an even keel where possible with peacekeepers - it may be impossible to attack Assad or ISIS in Syria (although as ISIS is more unequivocally awful even than Saddam it may not be Iraq redux) and Iraq because of the quagmire (albeit a dry one) you'd be wandering into, but Europe really needs to put more funding into North Africa if it wants people to stop going on these boats.
Indeed - further evidence of Little Britain not playing its part in dealing with the refugee crisis which we had a hand in creating :
Interesting break down of the top 10 nationalities who applied for asylum from January 2014 to December 2014.
Why should we provide asylum to Chinese refugees? It would appear that of the 1,500 who claimed asylum barely any were granted it. Again with Sri Lankan refugees, 1,700 claimed asylum and only 200 were granted it.
Doesn't quite fit in with the loony left's claim that all those poor people claiming asylum are fleeing persecution.
Well you shouldn't. Nazi Germany was nominally Christian and you can't change that just because it wasn't a particularly strong component of its identity.
Yes I should. Hitler didn't come to power by revolution - he kissed a lot of babies and spoke before a lot of Catholic women's groups on the way up. The fact that he didn't close the Churches and shoot the clergy has no bearing whatever on the atheistic philosophy behind his regime and its actions.
By 'atheistic philosophy' do you mean a philosophy that doesn't focus on the primacy of a god or a philosophy that actively rejects the existence of a god? You can promote the former without being an atheist.
I believe Nazism was the latter. One of the hymns of the Hitler Youth had this stanza:
"NO EVIL PRIEST CAN PREVENT US FROM FEELING
THAT WE ARE THE CHILDREN OF ADOLPH HITLER
AWAY WITH THE INCENSE AND HOLY WATER
THE SWASTIKA BRINGS SALVATION ON EARTH"
Through organisations like the Hitler Youth, they were deliberately killing the Church slowly by demography. To have done so immediately by having clergy shot, Bibles burned etc. would have been utterly politically impossible.
Being anti-Catholic and anti-Christian doesn't make you atheist. Hitler seemed to believe in a Deist divine providence that elevated the Germanic Aryan race. Apparently he still thought providence would still come to the German people's aid at the very end, as it had done for Frederick the Great.
One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".
What's hilarious as an atheist is that I see far more similarities (both good and bad) between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions it has evolved from. Many of the quotes both the "Islam is good" and "Islam is bad" crowd selectively quote are really translations of passages from the Old Testament.
Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.
And if both faiths manage to kill millions more in the coming years, they may even catch up with atheism in the head count stakes.
They have not been that many major killings that I know of in the name of atheism, the Khmer Rouge comes closest. Claiming people being killed in the name of communism is actually atheism is like claiming people being killed in the name of fascism is actually Christianity.
I'm including those killed by Nazism too. We have ample examples of what happens when man tries to replace God. In Nazi Germany he was replaced with a cult of personality and folkish superstition infused with race 'science'. Marx and the communists replaced him with the 'perfect' state. In every circumstance, people become something to be pushed aside in pursuit of a flawed vision. Mass death follows.
Well that's idiotic as the Nazi's were Christians. Moron.
Sorry you feel the need to resort to personal insults, but I'll address your point.
There is not a single reputable scholar in the field of history who will say that the Nazis were Christians. I've studied the inter-war period at degree level, so I know a little about it. Hitler was a militant atheist; who tolerated the Church (albeit subverting with the Nazi idoelogy) merely because his regime depended on maintaining the social fabric of Germany - indeed being seen to be a bulwark against it's disintegration.
I'd say that's a very fair and lucid summation.
Don't think I'd call Hitler a Militant Atheist - militant anti-Catholic might fit, given what he did to the churech-based youth organisations.
Certainly Richard Dawkins' and his Disciples gibberish about "Hitler was a Roman Catholic" are the usual type of abusive Dawkins fairy stories.
I'd more call him a Homicidal Pagan - ie some sort of inchoate nonorthodox blood and soil nature religion.
Surely only a matter of time* before we see those types of banners at Ibrox.
*millennia
Refugees should be welcome, and the goverment have been seemingly daftly inept and inactive about the whole thing. If Labour weren't currently in meltdown we might've had a few pieces saying that despite the pick me up of the election win, Cameron's government can be unbelievably lethargic in the manner of a tired one (see also the curious case of IDS not actually studying the after effects of policies intensely).
In order to solve this we need a far bigger border force and to get things on an even keel where possible with peacekeepers - it may be impossible to attack Assad or ISIS in Syria (although as ISIS is more unequivocally awful even than Saddam it may not be Iraq redux) and Iraq because of the quagmire (albeit a dry one) you'd be wandering into, but Europe really needs to put more funding into North Africa if it wants people to stop going on these boats.
Indeed - further evidence of Little Britain not playing its part in dealing with the refugee crisis which we had a hand in creating :
How did we have a hand in creating the civil war in Syria?
How did we have a hand in creating the mess that is Eritrea?
I would submit that both are largely the result of the behaviour of their own governments.
Yes, we should help refugees - but specious moral blackmail is not a good reason.
1. Libya?
2. Had we not misguidedly supported (many would say fuelled) the Syrian Uprising as part of the fabled 'Arab Spring', Assad would have had it put down in the space of months. No refugee crisis.
The Arab Spring started well before Libya (which was late to the party) kicked off....we didn't intervene in any of them.....
Mr. 1983, no, there aren't. There's a single non-belief.
There's no atheist Pope, Bible, church [either physical building or hierarchical organisation]. There are no atheist 10 Commandments, creeds, doctrines, precepts, pillars of faith etc etc.
Mr. Owls, how did you vote?
You are correct, of course, Mr Dancer, although I offer up for your ridicule the Atheist 10 Commandments (as invented recently):
Considering atheism as a bloc in the way of religions (or sub-religion sects) is as daft as considering non-Chelsea supporters to all be the same. There are lots of lazy atheists, lots who who are ardent like Dawkins, and so on. There's no unifying creed, book or authority figure, unlike religion.
There are lots of lazy and ardent Christians too. Non-Chelsea supporters are the same when looked at in terms of their Chelsea support or lack of.
Non-Chelsea supporters may still back them in a game if they're playinga club liked less.
A club less liked than Chelsea...Its an interesting hypothetical, if a little far fetched.
Well you shouldn't. Nazi Germany was nominally Christian and you can't change that just because it wasn't a particularly strong component of its identity.
Yes I should. Hitler didn't come to power by revolution - he kissed a lot of babies and spoke before a lot of Catholic women's groups on the way up. The fact that he didn't close the Churches and shoot the clergy has no bearing whatever on the atheistic philosophy behind his regime and its actions.
By 'atheistic philosophy' do you mean a philosophy that doesn't focus on the primacy of a god or a philosophy that actively rejects the existence of a god? You can promote the former without being an atheist.
I believe Nazism was the latter. One of the hymns of the Hitler Youth had this stanza:
"NO EVIL PRIEST CAN PREVENT US FROM FEELING
THAT WE ARE THE CHILDREN OF ADOLPH HITLER
AWAY WITH THE INCENSE AND HOLY WATER
THE SWASTIKA BRINGS SALVATION ON EARTH"
Through organisations like the Hitler Youth, they were deliberately killing the Church slowly by demography. To have done so immediately by having clergy shot, Bibles burned etc. would have been utterly politically impossible.
Being anti-Catholic and anti-Christian doesn't make you atheist. Hitler seemed to believe in a Deist divine providence that elevated the Germanic Aryan race. Apparently he still thought providence would still come to the German people's aid at the very end, as it had done for Frederick the Great.
"“I will crush and destroy the criminals who have dared to oppose themselves to Providence and me.” - Hitler, after the July Bomb Plot, 1944
One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".
What's hilarious as an atheist is that I see far more similarities (both good and bad) between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions it has evolved from. Many of the quotes both the "Islam is good" and "Islam is bad" crowd selectively quote are really translations of passages from the Old Testament.
Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.
And if both faiths manage to kill millions more in the coming years, they may even catch up with atheism in the head count stakes.
They have not been that many major killings that I know of in the name of atheism, the Khmer Rouge comes closest. Claiming people being killed in the name of communism is actually atheism is like claiming people being killed in the name of fascism is actually Christianity.
.
.
Sorry you feel the need to resort to personal insults, but I'll address your point.
There is not a single reputable scholar in the field of history who will say that the Nazis were Christians. I've studied the inter-war period at degree level, so I know a little about it. Hitler was a militant atheist; who tolerated the Church (albeit subverting with the Nazi idoelogy) merely because his regime depended on maintaining the social fabric of Germany - indeed being seen to be a bulwark against it's disintegration.
I'd say that's a very fair and lucid summation.
Don't think I'd call Hitler a Militant Atheist - militant anti-Catholic might fit, given what he did to the churech-based youth organisations.
Certainly Richard Dawkins' and his Disciples gibberish about "Hitler was a Roman Catholic" are the usual type of abusive Dawkins fairy stories.
I'd more call him a Homicidal Pagan - ie some sort of inchoate nonorthodox blood and soil nature religion.
I think my somewhat tentative view was that he was not entirely rational, especially latterly.
Surely only a matter of time* before we see those types of banners at Ibrox.
*millennia
Refugees should be welcome, and the goverment have been seemingly daftly inept and inactive about the whole thing. If Labour weren't currently in meltdown we might've had a few pieces saying that despite the pick me up of the election win, Cameron's government can be unbelievably lethargic in the manner of a tired one (see also the curious case of IDS not actually studying the after effects of policies intensely).
In order to solve this we need a far bigger border force and to get things on an even keel where possible with peacekeepers - it may be impossible to attack Assad or ISIS in Syria (although as ISIS is more unequivocally awful even than Saddam it may not be Iraq redux) and Iraq because of the quagmire (albeit a dry one) you'd be wandering into, but Europe really needs to put more funding into North Africa if it wants people to stop going on these boats.
Indeed - further evidence of Little Britain not playing its part in dealing with the refugee crisis which we had a hand in creating :
How did we have a hand in creating the civil war in Syria?
How did we have a hand in creating the mess that is Eritrea?
I would submit that both are largely the result of the behaviour of their own governments.
Yes, we should help refugees - but specious moral blackmail is not a good reason.
1. Libya?
2. Had we not misguidedly supported (many would say fuelled) the Syrian Uprising as part of the fabled 'Arab Spring', Assad would have had it put down in the space of months. No refugee crisis.
How exactly did we 'fuel' the Syrian uprising?
Whatever we do, or do not do, we will be blamed anyway, so it hardly matters.
There's a "vast wave of feeling" against the failures of the last Labour government, along with Labour's failure to defend their record, and their willingness to trade away their basic principles at the drop of the hat.
Considering atheism as a bloc in the way of religions (or sub-religion sects) is as daft as considering non-Chelsea supporters to all be the same. There are lots of lazy atheists, lots who who are ardent like Dawkins, and so on. There's no unifying creed, book or authority figure, unlike religion.
There are lots of lazy and ardent Christians too. Non-Chelsea supporters are the same when looked at in terms of their Chelsea support or lack of.
Non-Chelsea supporters may still back them in a game if they're playinga club liked less.
A club less liked than Chelsea...Its an interesting hypothetical, if a little far fetched.
It takes a heart of stone not to enjoy Chelsea at the moment!
One of the most disturbing parts of Islam is how the scholars divide the world into the "Land of Islam" and the "Land of War".
Islam shares more with Christianity than either side is willing to admit. Both for good and ill.
And if both faiths manage to kill millions more in the coming years, they may even catch up with atheism in the head count stakes.
.
s.
Well that's idiotic as the Nazi's were Christians. Moron.
Sorry you feel the need to resort to personal insults, but I'll address your point.
There is not a single reputable scholar in the field of history who will say that the Nazis were Christians. I've studied the inter-war period at degree level, so I know a little about it. Hitler was a militant atheist; who tolerated the Church (albeit subverting with the Nazi idoelogy) merely because his regime depended on maintaining the social fabric of Germany - indeed being seen to be a bulwark against it's disintegration.
I'd say that's a very fair and lucid summation.
Don't think I'd call Hitler a Militant Atheist - militant anti-Catholic might fit, given what he did to the churech-based youth organisations.
Certainly Richard Dawkins' and his Disciples gibberish about "Hitler was a Roman Catholic" are the usual type of abusive Dawkins fairy stories.
I'd more call him a Homicidal Pagan - ie some sort of inchoate nonorthodox blood and soil nature religion.
Some Hitler quotes:
"The peoples of Islam will always be closer to us than, for example, France".[226]
"The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"[225]
"[T]he conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire."[225]
"Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers [...] then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world."[227]
10 DAYS, 21 HOURS, 25 MINUTES to vote for Labour's next leader.
11 days till JICILL
JICIPM
Most people who are going to vote will have voted by now.
So the election winner is already determined and further comment by Blair and others is a waste of breathe.
The tone of his latest effort seems to reflect that I think, acknowledging that for some people if he says it it will only encourage people more, and so just resolving to hammer home his point of 'you are ignoring reality' over and over presumably so he can say he told you so afterwards.
Hitler's wars were not religious wars, because there was no way to convert to Nazi-ism. There was no set of beliefs which, if adopted, brought survival. (Compare with ISIS: adopt our Islamic beliefs, join us, and survive. Or, indeed, the Crusades.) No religion, with the possible exception of Judaism, contains racial elements in the way Nazi-ism did.
On the other hand, they were not atheistic wars either. Almost everybody in Nazi Germany, certainly including believed in God. Outside of the higher echelons of Communist Russia, belief in God in the 1930s and 1940s was essentially universal. Hitler's beliefs in the destiny of the German race was based on the belief that God had made Aryan Germans better.
If I was going to make the "evil atheists" argument, I think I would focus on Communism, which (a) killed far more people than Nazism, and (b) was obviously atheist.
Well you shouldn't. Nazi Germany was nominally Christian and you can't change that just because it wasn't a particularly strong component of its identity.
Yes I should. Hitler didn't come to power by revolution - he kissed a lot of babies and spoke before a lot of Catholic women's groups on the way up. The fact that he didn't close the Churches and shoot the clergy has no bearing whatever on the atheistic philosophy behind his regime and its actions.
By 'atheistic philosophy' do you mean a philosophy that doesn't focus on the primacy of a god or a philosophy that actively rejects the existence of a god? You can promote the former without being an atheist.
I believe Nazism was the latter. One of the hymns of the Hitler Youth had this stanza:
"NO EVIL PRIEST CAN PREVENT US FROM FEELING
THAT WE ARE THE CHILDREN OF ADOLPH HITLER
AWAY WITH THE INCENSE AND HOLY WATER
THE SWASTIKA BRINGS SALVATION ON EARTH"
Through organisations like the Hitler Youth, they were deliberately killing the Church slowly by demography. To have done so immediately by having clergy shot, Bibles burned etc. would have been utterly politically impossible.
The Nazi philosophy was that the leader was effectively Godlike.
10 DAYS, 21 HOURS, 25 MINUTES to vote for Labour's next leader.
11 days till JICILL
JICIPM
Most people who are going to vote will have voted by now.
So the election winner is already determined and further comment by Blair and others is a waste of breathe.
I have been wondering about this. Has there been any stats on how many have voted and what % were received right away and after a week etc of the total eligible to vote. Could we read anything at all into such information...... Or not?
Great news: the Conservatives have come out in favour of restoring free movement of labour within the EU to just be freedom of movement of... well, labour:
So beggars and the unemployed would not be able to come here. We need to add criminals to that list. I was speaking to a police officer on Friday who had seen the same criminal deported to Romania three times, and him coming back every time.
Mr. 1983, no, there aren't. There's a single non-belief.
There's no atheist Pope, Bible, church [either physical building or hierarchical organisation]. There are no atheist 10 Commandments, creeds, doctrines, precepts, pillars of faith etc etc.
Well you shouldn't. Nazi Germany was nominally Christian and you can't change that just because it wasn't a particularly strong component of its identity.
Yes I should. Hitler didn't come to power by revolution - he kissed a lot of babies and spoke before a lot of Catholic women's groups on the way up. The fact that he didn't close the Churches and shoot the clergy has no bearing whatever on the atheistic philosophy behind his regime and its actions.
By 'atheistic philosophy' do you mean a philosophy that doesn't focus on the primacy of a god or a philosophy that actively rejects the existence of a god? You can promote the former without being an atheist.
I believe Nazism was the latter. One of the hymns of the Hitler Youth had this stanza:
"NO EVIL PRIEST CAN PREVENT US FROM FEELING
THAT WE ARE THE CHILDREN OF ADOLPH HITLER
AWAY WITH THE INCENSE AND HOLY WATER
THE SWASTIKA BRINGS SALVATION ON EARTH"
Through organisations like the Hitler Youth, they were deliberately killing the Church slowly by demography. To have done so immediately by having clergy shot, Bibles burned etc. would have been utterly politically impossible.
The Nazi philosophy was that the leader was effectively Godlike.
Mr. Quidder, not sure. What if you don't believe in something you don't know exists as a belief? There are some who are unaware of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, for example.
Mr. JEO, quite the contrast to Germany's approach.
Comments
Anyone who thinks that Islam and Christianity are very much alike has not studied theology, history or current affairs very thouroughly!
The notion of "turning the other cheek" being what is taught depends upon who is doing the teaching. The problem with the Bible and all other equivalents is that it has evolved over millenia and is full of contradictions. A pastor can selectively quote "turn the other cheek" or can selectively quote the exact opposite. From New or Old.
What contradiction to 'turn the other cheek' exists in the New Testament?
Mr. T, a conscious or coincidental quoting of Machiavelli (it's better to be feared than loved)? He added that one must avoid being hated.
Err the historical argument is that Christian Western Europe had the Age of Enlightenment (Reason) from the 1620s to the 1780s in which cultural and intellectual forces in Western Europe emphasized reason, analysis, and individualism rather than traditional lines of authority . this had a fundamental impact of how Europe came to be Governed .
Whereas Muslim countries are basically tied up in the State must reflect the religion and both are inextricably linked and logic pays no part in political thinking.
Add to that the Protestant "work ethic" and you have a huge difference in outlook.
If the Arab settlements in Israel had been Protestant, it is likely by now they would be an economic powerhouse rather than a cesspit of underemployed people prone to terrorism.
As for Sean's remarks. I "get" religion. Religion is a significant construct that man has invented both in part to explain the world and as a set of rules to live by, it has evolved over time. Those who refuse to see how religion has evolved over time are the ones who don't "get" it.
In order to solve this we need a far bigger border force and to get things on an even keel where possible with peacekeepers - it may be impossible to attack Assad or ISIS in Syria (although as ISIS is more unequivocally awful even than Saddam it may not be Iraq redux) and Iraq because of the quagmire (albeit a dry one) you'd be wandering into, but Europe really needs to put more funding into North Africa if it wants people to stop going on these boats.
Luther wanted women as well as men to be able to read the Bible, he points out. Not only did his followers set out to establish church schools in every parish, but girls went there as well as boys, he says. "We looked into the records of school building in the German federal state of Brandenburg in the 16th century, and discovered that there were disproportionately more girls in school than boys. Protestantism, it seems, was an early driver of emancipation. At that time, remember, Catholic areas didn't even have any boys' schools.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/oct/31/economics-religion-research
There is not a single reputable scholar in the field of history who will say that the Nazis were Christians. I've studied the inter-war period at degree level, so I know a little about it. Hitler was a militant atheist; who tolerated the Church (albeit subverting with the Nazi idoelogy) merely because his regime depended on maintaining the social fabric of Germany - indeed being seen to be a bulwark against it's disintegration.
https://twitter.com/paul1kirby/status/637898722391756800
Here are some of Hitler's quotes:
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains...The war will be over one day. I shall then consider that my life's final task will be to solve the religious problem." [Hitler’s Table Talk, p. 142-4]
"Christianity is the biggest lie the Jews ever told humanity"
-- Adolf Hitler, 13 December 1941.
"So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death," -- Adolf Hitler, 14 October 1941.
"When National Socialism has ruled long enough, it will no longer be possible to conceive of a form of life different from ours. In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together…The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity." [Hitler's Table Talk, p. 6-7]
"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." [p. 51]
"Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that's why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline."[Hitler's Table Talk, pp 58-62]
"Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking 'You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?'" [Speer, Albert, Inside the Third Reich, Bonanza Books, New York, p. 96]
"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity." [Hitler's Table Talk, p. 75]
"The Jew who fraudulently introduced Christianity into the ancient world----in order to ruin it----re-opened the same breach in modern times, taking as his pretext the social question. Just as Saul became St. Paul, Mardochai has become Karl Marx." [p. 314]
As you see there is really no room for argument on this. The whole 'Hitler was a Christian' meme is one of the more despicably mendacious constructs of the militant secularist brigade. Expect to see a whole lot of sassy internet blog pieces endorsing this view - nothing serious.
I completely agree we need to give up this 50% University nonsense and do what we can to boost the attractiveness of skills based training both financially and in terms of prestige. Too many apprenticeships are just a source of cheap labour and do not produce the skills the economy needs.
I thought our capital allowance schemes were pretty competitive internationally but I agree we should be looking to provide both infrastructure and training to encourage import substitution connected with current output.
I think you are being a bit unfair to the government, not least as it is so hard to do many of these things when budgets are under extreme pressure but there is no doubt much more to do.
"NO EVIL PRIEST CAN PREVENT US FROM FEELING
THAT WE ARE THE CHILDREN OF ADOLPH HITLER
AWAY WITH THE INCENSE AND HOLY WATER
THE SWASTIKA BRINGS SALVATION ON EARTH"
Through organisations like the Hitler Youth, they were deliberately killing the Church slowly by demography. To have done so immediately by having clergy shot, Bibles burned etc. would have been utterly politically impossible.
11 days till JICILL
How did we have a hand in creating the mess that is Eritrea?
I would submit that both are largely the result of the behaviour of their own governments.
Yes, we should help refugees - but specious moral blackmail is not a good reason.
There's no atheist Pope, Bible, church [either physical building or hierarchical organisation]. There are no atheist 10 Commandments, creeds, doctrines, precepts, pillars of faith etc etc.
Mr. Owls, how did you vote?
The first and third lines would be at home in a chant at Ibrox.
2. Had we not misguidedly supported (many would say fuelled) the Syrian Uprising as part of the fabled 'Arab Spring', Assad would have had it put down in the space of months. No refugee crisis.
JICILL.
As in JICILL and HIDE.
Why should we provide asylum to Chinese refugees? It would appear that of the 1,500 who claimed asylum barely any were granted it. Again with Sri Lankan refugees, 1,700 claimed asylum and only 200 were granted it.
Doesn't quite fit in with the loony left's claim that all those poor people claiming asylum are fleeing persecution.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3215610/Asylum-open-door-UK-hits-10-year-high-green-light-one-three-visa-applications-32-344-refugees-year-s-EU-border-chaos.html
Certainly Richard Dawkins' and his Disciples gibberish about "Hitler was a Roman Catholic" are the usual type of abusive Dawkins fairy stories.
I'd more call him a Homicidal Pagan - ie some sort of inchoate nonorthodox blood and soil nature religion.
How exactly did we 'fuel' the Syrian uprising?
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/19/living/atheist-10-commandments/
"The peoples of Islam will always be closer to us than, for example, France".[226]
"The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"[225]
"[T]he conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire."[225]
"Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers [...] then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world."[227]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
So the election winner is already determined and further comment by Blair and others is a waste of breathe.
"Corbynated!"
On the other hand, they were not atheistic wars either. Almost everybody in Nazi Germany, certainly including believed in God. Outside of the higher echelons of Communist Russia, belief in God in the 1930s and 1940s was essentially universal. Hitler's beliefs in the destiny of the German race was based on the belief that God had made Aryan Germans better.
If I was going to make the "evil atheists" argument, I think I would focus on Communism, which (a) killed far more people than Nazism, and (b) was obviously atheist.
I don't think you can convert to Hinduism either.
Could we read anything at all into such information...... Or not?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34100643
So beggars and the unemployed would not be able to come here. We need to add criminals to that list. I was speaking to a police officer on Friday who had seen the same criminal deported to Romania three times, and him coming back every time.
Failed asylum seekers would be limited to "a few weeks" shelter after being turned down, if they do not agree to return home.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0830/724442-migrants-europe/
Mr. JEO, quite the contrast to Germany's approach.