What is your religion and why is it the worst?

[ilikeplanets]

Feeling kind of awkward posting itt again because I probably seem like a walking identity crisis, but this thread inspired me to search for a clearer definition of my beliefs and "Humanistic Judaism" is clearly it.

[MyOneAndOnly]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

That is true, but similarly most people who fought for the Confederacy did not do so for the ideological cause of saving slavery. But I think you're right, and I think that is probably a more important distinction than we generally recognize (the ideology of the elite vs. the motivation of those who follow them).

No. Southerns who put on the grey and chose treason did so to protect slavery. It was a singular overriding focus of the secessionist movement, and of the confederacy. There was no other real issue. "States Rights" was and is a dog whistle for slavery and racism.

If the United States did not have legal slavery there would have been no civil war.

[ilikeplanets]

It's the worst because it causes me to interrupt conversations and over-explain myself to an audience that doesn't care

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by MyOneAndOnly

No. Southerns who put on the grey and chose treason did so to protect slavery. It was a singular overriding focus of the secessionist movement, and of the confederacy. There was no other real issue. "States Rights" was and is a dog whistle for slavery and racism.

If the United States did not have legal slavery there would have been no civil war.

that's because the ideology drove the war, just as the ideology drove the Nazi party. most common people fought to protect their homes from a perceived invading army, and were basically peasants living under neo-feudal lords, and like common people throughout history who died for political elites, had little connection to the systems of entitlement and riches that drove their masters. so that's just not true, like patently untrue, and disregards (IMO) the global situation of the very poor throughout all of history. I'm pretty sure it was less than 10% of Confederate fighters were actual slaveholders.

[redbreegull]

It feels very weird to say the Nazis were driven by these diverse and often incongruous beliefs (which is true) but our own version of that was driven ONLY BY PURE EVIL!!!

[redbreegull]

I mean did the Crusaders fight for salvation or riches? Cause both are true, but the reasons are different depending on if you were the Pope or a guy fighting advanced trained armies with a butcher's knife who marched thousands of miles from his home to ensure he could get into heaven

[redbreegull]

In the case of the Confederacy, it's so easy to find the literal words of the political and military leaders who fought the war clearly based on slavery. Do such texts exist for the Nazis? Where leaders explicitly state they were fighting for Christianity and not for the Nazi religion and Aryan dominancy?

[MyOneAndOnly]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

that's because the ideology drove the war, just as the ideology drove the Nazi party. most common people fought to protect their homes from a perceived invading army, and were basically peasants living under neo-feudal lords, and like common people throughout history who died for political elites, had little connection to the systems of entitlement and riches that drove their masters. so that's just not true, like patently untrue, and disregards (IMO) the global situation of the very poor throughout all of history. I'm pretty sure it was less than 10% of Confederate fighters were actual slaveholders.

I utterly and completely disagree with you. While most southern whites didn't own slaves they supported slavery. The confederacy and secession was all about protecting slavery, and expansion into more territories. It was NOT a bunch of feudal lords dragging the working class into a war. Racial slavery was broadly supported by average farmers and "free men" in the South. Men who took up arms against the United States didn't do so to Protect themselves from an invading army. That's like saying the Militia freaks in Idaho are defending themselves from an invading army when the Feds try to arrest them for breaking laws.

Also, the Confederate army, which was ALL VOLUNTEER up until 1662 (and even after 1662 was 90% volunteer) attacked the United States military at Ft Sumter to start the war!!! The US military didn't attack the South. The confederacy spent months... years even... organizing their government and raising an army or EXPANSION.

If you look at the actions and plans of the Confederate government (which was ELECTED) and you look at their constitution, they had a broad plan to take over Territories in the West, to invade Mexico, to invade Caribbean nations, and to set up a type of slave merchantile economy with white Confederates exploiting and enslaving non whites throughout the Americas.

The idea that the majority of southerners didn't support and go to war to keep slavery, and that they were just poor farmers trying to protect themselves, is historical revisionism.

[MyOneAndOnly]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

It feels very weird to say the Nazis were driven by these diverse and often incongruous beliefs (which is true) but our own version of that was driven ONLY BY PURE EVIL!!!

you can't have Nazism without the final solution. It is a feature not a bug. Every public speech hitler made for 20 years blamed the Jews and called for persecution of Jews.

Maybe the average German didn't know about the Ovens, but the ones who did went right along with it. And it took tens of millions of people to round up millions of Jews, force them into cattle cars, and then steal all their property.

People have varying levels of personal interests and motivations. But Hitler had broad support. And most Germans were OK with what he was doing.

[redbreegull]

ok, but the point was how central Christianity was to the Nazi motivation, and I'm not seeing that. What I was saying exactly is that Hitler's commitment to belief was NOT Christianity like you are saying the common Nazis held, it was to Aryan supremacy. Which is the comparison I was drawing. I don't doubt the Southerners were racists who supported slavery, all I doubt is this blanket idea that it was the SOLE motivation behind the abjectly poor going to war, whereas apparently the Nazis were more nuanced between their elites and their commoners? That's a hard sell, especially since the Nazi commoners would have been economically a lot closer to the elites than that distinction in the American South in the 1860s

[redbreegull]

also lol the Nazis were definitely elected as well if I recall correctly.

so why is their actual professed religion and mythology less centrally tied to what they were doing in your eyes than that of the Confederates? Unless you just really want to tie Christianity to Nazisim?

[redbreegull]

What I am saying is getting obscured, but basically why do you see the Nazis as REAL Christians and the substructure of their belief system as being a ruse, whereas in another white supremacist war the American Nazis were true ideologues whose hearts and souls were in the words of the elite all the way through?

The Nazis were NOT about Christianity, they were about white supremacy, just as the Confederacy was NOT about fighting for your home, it was for slavery. That is my point. It's the insistence on the Nazis fundamentally being Christian that just seems disingenuous

Every poor German who fought for the Nazis took up and accepted the civic religion and revisionist alternative history that was central to their belief system and goal. Just like every Confederate who took up arms for the South attached themselves to that civic religion, rejection of American democracy and federal authority, etc. My problem is trying to connect Christianity with Nazism as some kind of central motivation. I think that's just false. It's not any more true in a general sense because a lot of them were culturally Catholic than the idea that the South was not driven by slavery because common people didn't own slaves.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by MyOneAndOnly

you can't have Nazism without the final solution. It is a feature not a bug. Every public speech hitler made for 20 years blamed the Jews and called for persecution of Jews.
.

This is precisely my point. The Final Solution is the most important part of the ideology. Not belief in Jesus Christ. Their worldview was not a fundamentally Christian one, and it wasn't fundamentally driven by anything from Christianity. The Bible was parsed for threads to pull together into their REAL ideology, like many other sources, but they were not Catholic Crusaders, they didn't see themselves like that and they had more interest in destroying Christianity than being motivated by it

[MyOneAndOnly]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

This is precisely my point. The Final Solution is the most important part of the ideology. Not belief in Jesus Christ. Their worldview was not a fundamentally Christian one, and it wasn't fundamentally driven by anything from Christianity. The Bible was parsed for threads to pull together into their REAL ideology, like many other sources, but they were not Catholic Crusaders, they didn't see themselves like that and they had more interest in destroying Christianity than being motivated by it

There is a straight line from 2k years of Catholic persecution of Jews to the final solution.

[vixnix]

Originally Posted by MyOneAndOnly

yeah but why is it the worst?

Oh well that’s easy, because of Christians

If we’re not angry zealots ruining peoples’ lives by trying to remove their rights and spewing hate speech all the time while simultaneously opposing gun law reforms, we’re just judging people for not being part of the right religion or judging each other for not expressing Christian religious identity in the right way

That’s without even getting into the worst of it - numerous child abuse scandals we tried to cover up because we chose to side with abusers rather than the abused

Burning and hanging women who had herb gardens because we believed they had dark magic from the devil

Trying to suppress scientific breakthroughs or else just denying them and coming up with dumb unscientific theories of our own

Rejecting art/music/literature because it was from the devil. Burning books

Using fear and poor theological analysis to indoctrinate and institutionalise children

[smashingjj]

I'm intrigued tell me more

[Disco King]

[MyOneAndOnly]

my problem with dogmatic religions is that they all seem to lead to abuse, violence, hierarchy, etc. Dogmatic religious traditions tend to deny the validity of other religions, which inherently leads to conflict.

Most indigenous animistic spiritual traditions don't work that way. They are either indifferent to or tolerant of other religions. Not just those in the new world, but the indigenous religions of Europe as well. Scandinavian people didn't try to forcibly convert others to Heathenry. Even the Romans didn't do that. The Greeks built cities throughout Asia, but never forced local people to give up their faith just because they were ruled or administered by followers of Zeus.

[ilikeplanets]

Yeah, if people would leave other people's personal decisions alone that'd be great

[vixnix]

Having said that, in the ancient world they still killed and subjugated a goodly number of people. Empires generally have that reputation. They just didn’t need religious justification.

A lot of Christianity’s problems came about when it became the state religion of an imperial machine. It’s impact and reach would have been far smaller if it had stayed in its lane as a Jewish sect.

[MyOneAndOnly]

Originally Posted by vixnix

Having said that, in the ancient world they still killed and subjugated a goodly number of people. Empires generally have that reputation. They just didn’t need religious justification.

A lot of Christianity’s problems came about when it became the state religion of an imperial machine. It’s impact and reach would have been far smaller if it had stayed in its lane as a Jewish sect.

edit: I'm gonna delete my rant about the evils of christianity. LOL.

[ilikeplanets]

That's one of Christianity's defining features, proselytizing and forcibly converting others. That's such a troubling concept for me. Why would anyone try to tell someone else that isnt attending a religious service they are leading how to feel about God? Why would anyone feel like they're right and others are wrong? I understand the political history around some of the more violent and conquest-driven versions of this, but even modern-day "family next door" Christians still publicly espouse their "truth" and offer to show me the way. Lol I would never.

[Disco King]

Because they think you're going to go to Hell and that they are doing you a favour by trying to prevent that

[Disco King]

Or they just like being smarmy and insistent. Different sects have different theologies about whether good people still go to hell for not believing in the correct religion.

[ovary]

Originally Posted by MyOneAndOnly

I utterly and completely disagree with you. While most southern whites didn't own slaves they supported slavery. The confederacy and secession was all about protecting slavery, and expansion into more territories. It was NOT a bunch of feudal lords dragging the working class into a war. Racial slavery was broadly supported by average farmers and "free men" in the South. Men who took up arms against the United States didn't do so to Protect themselves from an invading army. That's like saying the Militia freaks in Idaho are defending themselves from an invading army when the Feds try to arrest them for breaking laws.

Also, the Confederate army, which was ALL VOLUNTEER up until 1662 (and even after 1662 was 90% volunteer) attacked the United States military at Ft Sumter to start the war!!! The US military didn't attack the South. The confederacy spent months... years even... organizing their government and raising an army or EXPANSION.

If you look at the actions and plans of the Confederate government (which was ELECTED) and you look at their constitution, they had a broad plan to take over Territories in the West, to invade Mexico, to invade Caribbean nations, and to set up a type of slave merchantile economy with white Confederates exploiting and enslaving non whites throughout the Americas.

The idea that the majority of southerners didn't support and go to war to keep slavery, and that they were just poor farmers trying to protect themselves, is historical revisionism.

regardless of "who started it" or what plans the confederacy had, the war itself was a federal invasion of the south. just look at a map of the battles. one major motivator of the average southern soldier (along with slavery) was defending their state/land from invasion. this was one reason lee's brief forays into the north were such disasters. his troops did not fight nearly as well when not on defense. i think something like a third of his army straight up deserted and went home each time he crossed the potomac.

the motivation of the confederacy was nearly entirely slavery... slavery was wrapped up in all of the other motivations as well. but at the level of individual soldier defending from invasion was a common motivator that was not always tied up with defending slavery. individuals also often had more loyalty to their state government than the federal one. again this loyalty was sometimes tied up with slavery, sometimes not.

like in the other thread, you seem to have a problem admitting ambiguity and contradiction within historical motivations, and are really committed to claiming a very generalized/broad brush version of history that feature clear heroes and villians whose past actions carry down to the moral questions of today.

basically i think you are treating history more like religion.

[vixnix]

Originally Posted by ilikeplanets

That's one of Christianity's defining features, proselytizing and forcibly converting others. That's such a troubling concept for me. Why would anyone try to tell someone else that isnt attending a religious service they are leading how to feel about God? Why would anyone feel like they're right and others are wrong? I understand the political history around some of the more violent and conquest-driven versions of this, but even modern-day "family next door" Christians still publicly espouse their "truth" and offer to show me the way. Lol I would never.

It’s because there is a biblical command to go out and make disciples of all the nations, so Christians who believe the Bible is God’s word and infallible take that instruction literally. Plus, Christians often call the gospel the Good News so Christians do believe they are spreading the Good News and it will have a positive impact on others, by saving their souls.

I think Jews find that particularly distasteful because Judaism has the opposite narrative, more like “You are God’s chosen people, keep to yourselves”. It’s an almost comical situation

[MyOneAndOnly]

Originally Posted by ovary

regardless of "who started it" or what plans the confederacy had, the war itself was a federal invasion of the south. just look at a map of the battles. one major motivator of the average southern soldier (along with slavery) was defending their state/land from invasion. this was one reason lee's brief forays into the north were such disasters. his troops did not fight nearly as well when not on defense. i think something like a third of his army straight up deserted and went home each time he crossed the potomac.

the motivation of the confederacy was nearly entirely slavery... slavery was wrapped up in all of the other motivations as well. but at the level of individual soldier defending from invasion was a common motivator that was not always tied up with defending slavery. individuals also often had more loyalty to their state government than the federal one. again this loyalty was sometimes tied up with slavery, sometimes not.

like in the other thread, you seem to have a problem admitting ambiguity and contradiction within historical motivations, and are really committed to claiming a very generalized/broad brush version of history that feature clear heroes and villians whose past actions carry down to the moral questions of today.

basically i think you are treating history more like religion.

confederate states built a volunteer army... and then attacked the United States Military. They weren't "invaded" They started a civil war. They knew what they were doing and why they were doing it. What they expected was that the Northern States would let them leave.. that they'd be afraid or unwilling to fight a militarized south.

I'm sure there were men who took up arms in the South because they felt they had to. But the key point in the back and forth is whether the motivation of men to fight was slavery or not. And we know today that it was overwhelmingly slavery that drove the motivations of the hundreds of thousands of men who voted for the Confederate government and secession, volunteered for an illegal army, and willingly attacked the US military at Ft Sumter.... all before the American Military "invaded" any southern state.

When i studied history at UofM (and studied things like this), this would have barely been an argument. Arguments can be good things. And RBG is an adult that I can disagree with. It's not that big of a deal

[ilikeplanets]

Originally Posted by vixnix

It’s because there is a biblical command to go out and make disciples of all the nations, so Christians who believe the Bible is God’s word and infallible take that instruction literally. Plus, Christians often call the gospel the Good News so Christians do believe they are spreading the Good News and it will have a positive impact on others, by saving their souls.

I think Jews find that particularly distasteful because Judaism has the opposite narrative, more like “You are God’s chosen people, keep to yourselves”. It’s an almost comical situation

It's honestly stunning how evangelical types can relate everything back to Jesus. And the fact that they are HIGHLY disturbed that I do not "accept Christ as my Lord and Savior." I suppose it is coming from a well-intentioned place, but attempting to convert me, already a laughable idea, doesn't have to make it's way into a conversation about potato soup (true story).

[ilikeplanets]

Now I feel like an ass, since no one else attacked anyone else's religion. But damn, some Christians, man.

[vixnix]

Yeah I hear ya. I have the same conversations with Christians like that because they’re testing me to see if I am Christian enough for them to trust me or whether I am lukewarm and therefore a conduit for the devil’s work.