I can give you examples of predominantly theistic nations allying themselves, against the ‘racially pure cause’, can you give me an example of a predominantly atheistic nation allying itself against the racially pure cause?
Atheist Ayn Rand was a moral absolutist, theist Spinoza was a moral relativist.
And for some people, being a theist makes them happier, because they feel cared for.
I’m not necessarily against, and may be in favor of someone absolutely supporting values I relatively support.
And while absolute = made up, made up doesn’t necessarily = absolute.
An atheist may say it’s relatively, or absolutely good to kill a person, or people.
Are animism, deism, pantheism, polytheism and trinitarianism (gracious or merciful monotheism) on the one hand, and democracy on the other antipodal?
When did Mao claim or his followers proclaim him to, literally be a god?
They blame the dealers and users too, that’s why they imprison them, meanwhile progressives blame the addiction, which they attribute to an absent or abusive conservative father, capitalism, poverty…anything and everything but the individual.
While instituting checks and balances (which ought to include the division and, right limitations of powers (I have little respect for corporate sovereignty, but great respect for the sovereignty of individuals, families, communities, nations and small businesses) will help, any and every institution, including, perhaps especially government, is corruptible, and government corruption is the worst, because it’s organized violence.
Democrats ban you from banning people, and behaviors from your family, business, country, club, community and church.
Trump, like Hitllary can get away with soft tyranny, not hard.
Greed masquerading as religious, or secular righteousness is the rule, real righteousness the exception.
And the German parties to the left of Merkel want to coddle them even more.
Trump wants to ban all or some Muslims permanently or temporarily, ban all Muslim refugees, institute more background checks and surveillance on and of Muslims and he’s not afraid to use the term radical Islam, meanwhile democrats oppose him on all this.
They want a looser border, and while they, say they want to reduce the military, they’re often nearly as hawkish as Republicans, and both the green party, and the libertarians would probably reduce the military a hell of a lot more.
Here’s just one example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity
Referring to Hitler as Christian makes about as much sense as referring to Stalin as a communist.
Other than claiming to be Christian, not only was everything Hitler did and said unchristian, but it was anti-Christian.
There’s no such thing as a perfect Christian, but so what?
There’s no such thing as a perfect anything.
Hitler was about as far from Christian as one could possibly get.
The question now is: for how long was Hitler, consciously anti-Christian?
The Nazi Party was at best apathetic about Christ’s divinity and at worst hostile to Christ, and so at best apathetic about or hostile to Christianity.
If we caught a political party pretending to be Christian for at least the last 8 years of its existence (1937-1945, which is when they committed their atrocities, mind you), than not only is there no reason to believe they weren’t pretending to be Christian the entire time, but if anything they probably were.
Adolf Hitler
Historians probably have fair-good reasons for believing this was Alfred Rosenberg and the Nazi Party’s intent, what reason do you have for disregarding them?
You haven’t presented any.
There’s too much emphasis on Hitler and not enough on the Nazi Party.
even if Hitler was Christian (which he wasn’t, in fact he was (consciously) anti-Christian), the Nazi party had some pagans, irreligious theists, so it can’t be blamed solely on a single religion.
I have no incentive to lie, I’m agnostic, and insofar as historians have reason to lie, Hitchens, who was an atheist and vehemently anti-Christian, all the more so.
The point is not all theism is equal, some forms are easier to use to commit atrocities, or good deeds for that matter than others.
I have reason to suspect.
It’s irrational to be 100% certain of anything.
This is a philosophy forum, not his class, there is no authority here.
Says the guy who casually dismisses what multiple historians have to say about the Nazi Party’s religion.
Perhaps unlikely, but if unlikely, that still doesn’t mean it’s not worth critically examining him.
It’s also unlikely he’s 100% right and his reader 100% wrong where they disagree or his reader has doubts or questions, and if the reader doesn’t critically examine everything, he’ll never uncover what Chomsky is wrong about.
Two heads are better than one.
So long as the reader is fairly knowledgeable and reasonable, if he critically interprets Chomsky, he, and you’ll be getting Chomsky’s brain + the reader’s, instead of just Chomsky’s.
Insofar as history and sociology are art, Chomsky may be popular among academics primarily for his art.
Insofar as history and sociology are about man’s love of authority, certainty and hierarchy, he, and his school of thought may’ve been somewhat arbitrarily chosen to be number one, because there has to be a number one, even if many of the alternatives are about equally knowledgeable and reasonable.
Chomsky may be highly regarded because he’s primarily, well, highly regarded, many of his colleagues may’ve happened to be mistaken about him, and the colleagues of those colleagues may’ve had faith in their judgement, and so on down the line, so a big part of Chomsky’s success may be luck, many people highly regarding him primarily because many people highly regard him, and few people ever critically examining him.
They want everyone to pay for it.
Republicrats are bribed by special interests who stand to gain from their allegiance.
You think too much about money, and not enough about the fact that those who choose to work will have to worker harder for less stuff if millions of people quit their job to live solely off UBI.
Here’s what I mean by what I’m now calling BSI (basic supplementary income):
Government directly pays the employed and involuntarily unemployed 10000$ annually at the richest 1%'s expense in addition to whatever their employers or welfare are already paying them themselves, it doesn’t force employers to raise their wages.
How’re you going to know how to take care of your kids if, according to you, you don’t even know how to take care of yourself?