Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[10ebbor10]

((Allow me to question the neutrality of the link provided)).

Also, I said the church, as the institute. Not, the church as the collection of all the religious people. Of course the majority of the christians in germany followed Hitler. (Being , at the time, a mostly protestant country, there's no other way). At that point in time, more than 90% of the country was religious, either protestant or catholic. There's no way a faction having popular support would not have been supported by what is the majority of the population.

While the protestant church was mainly pro hitler (mostly because it was state controlled since the 1930 something), a significant fraction broke of, and later even tried to assinate him in 1943. The Catholician clergy was mostly antiHitler, resulting in a treatment of at best toleration, but often even open aggresion.

Before Hitler rose to power, many Catholic priests and leaders vociferously opposed Nazism on the grounds of its incompatibility with Christian morals

Several thousand priests died in concentration camps, mostly Polish ones. Almost all abbey's and such where nationalized and secularized.

The church itself maintained neutrality, even as Rome was occupied by Nazi-Germany, and actively tried to prevent another war. (As did the all the other nations involved)

Link
LInk

PS: My main error was that I assumed Hitler didn't control the churches. Apparently he did. Or at least the protestant ones.

[Reelya]

Thanks for providing 100% unbiased wikipedia to refute my book sources. Ta. Seriously every interest group on the planet has been caught editing the wiki pages about themselves.

BTW you do realize that those wikipedia entries support my source, either way.

[10ebbor10]

Thanks for providing 100% unbiased wikipedia to refute my book sources. Ta. Seriously every interest group on the planet has been caught editing the wiki pages about themselves.

I suppose a website which is based around neutrality of information is still a better information source then a website designed to be a catalogue of anti religious arguments.

[Reelya]

Yeah but your source says the same as mine, so you're misrepresenting it, or plain not reading it at all.

The German Christians (Deutsche Christen) constituted the strongest Protestant movement in Germany after the 1932 Church elections, with the aim of synthesising Christianity with the ideology of National Socialism. There were various groups within the German Evangelical Church including the Deutsche Christen and opposition factions that later split under the name Confessing Church. The Deutsche Christen factions were united in the goal of establishing a national socialist Protestantism [16] Deutsche Christen abolished what they considered to be Jewish traditions in Christianity, and some but not all rejected the Old Testament altogether. They rejected academic theology as sterile and not populist enough and were often anti-Catholic. On November 1933, A Protestant mass rally of the Deutsche Christen, which brought together a record 20,000 people, passed three resolutions:

    Adolf Hitler is the completion of the Reformation
...
Ludwig Müller (a German who headed the German Christians (German: Deutsche Christen) )

Ludwig Müller (1883–1945), after his first meeting with Hitler, was convinced that he had a divine responsibility to promote Hitler and his ideals,

[10ebbor10]

Yeah but your source says the same as mine, so you're misrepresenting it, or plain not reading it at all.

They do? It appears not to me.

It clearly states that before and in the beginning all but the statecontrolled churches opposed the Nazi regime, and that after they either opposed and were arrested, or remained neutral.

You guys seem to be severly underestimating what somebody can do with a crisis, and complete control of all media for a period of about 7 years.

[Helgoland]

Naah, we all know what Bush did. /trolling

[Reelya]

"In the beginning" they didn't have any state-controlled churches, so you have that backwards - that came later. and there are numerous passages in your source which contradict the basic premise you're making:

Many Nazis promoted positive Christianity, a militant, non-denominational form of Christianity which viewed Christ as an active fighter and anti-semite who opposed the institutionalized Judaism of his day. Even in the later years of the Third Reich, many Protestant and Catholic clergy within Germany persisted in believing that Nazism was in its essence in accordance with Christian precepts

Are you seriously going to cherry-pick only the "convenient" parts of your own source? Sure, there were dissenters, but there were many who believed in and worked with the Nazi's right through the war. There were very few atheists at that time.

[Starver]

Spoiler: An irrelevant aside about stats, ninjaed anyway (click to show/hide)

My background including pharmaceutical study statistics (obliquely), I just did an interesting thought experiment.  Theorising an equal distribution of black/red cards in a (maybe) equally-distributed sample-hat, we draw out two reds (frexample) as our first two cards.  What is the likelihood that this was an aberration rather than representative[1]?

Interestingly, with a large potential sample, then comparing to an assumption of 50:50 pure chance, it's 0.5 * ~0.5 (the latter being slightly less than 0.5, but quite close), NAMND to 25%.  A sample of four cards (the baseline assumption being 2 of each) provides a chance of 0.5*0.3˙, or 16.6˙%.  Compare this to the counter-extreme (not possible with four cards, but you can have "all but two are non-red" in 5+ sets) of being increasingly less possible the result is by chance, as the cohort size increases, and of course to instinctive conclusion ("all are red") and the smaller population version is less wrong than the larger population one.

Of course, you need to colour these resulting proportions by the actual chance one might have plucked two reds out of a set of {entirely red | half-n-half | those-are-the-only-reds} situation, in order to get this situation in the first place.  (Respectively 100%, something like "!(n/2)*!(n-2) / !(n)*!(n/2 - 2)" for n cards with n/2 reds, and "2/(n²-n)" for n cards with 2 reds... if I've not messed up those two mental rearrangements at all...)


Of course, those represent situations in which we know what we should be looking at and are just being picky as to the observations.  Much apart from any point where I've accidentally dropped a clanger, I'm just saying as how you could try (albeit fail, against anyone knowledgeable enough to pick apart ones hypothesis) to prove anything... Lies, damn lies, etc.


But the closer the selected cohort is to the size of the population it is supposed to represents, the better (though not in a linear fashion!).  I'm sure that's pretty much a truth, and magnitudes of difference probably equates to sufficient gain/loss of assumable accuracy.  There's probably some Poisson stuff to be done in there to decide whether doubling your sub-selection is worth any given amount of extra confidence or not, though.  It's a long time since I've dabbled with statistical methodology so I'd have to go from first principles again (better than I did above) in order to get be confident about my exact confidences!



[1] This estimation being more important in 'proving' clinical studies.  i.e. if you can show that non-correlation is unlikely (beyond a standard limit), then actual correlation can be accepted as a supportable hypothesis.

[10ebbor10]

"In the beginning" they didn't have any state-controlled churches, so you have that backwards - that came later. and there are numerous passages in your source which contradict the basic premise you're making:

Many Nazis promoted positive Christianity, a militant, non-denominational form of Christianity which viewed Christ as an active fighter and anti-semite who opposed the institutionalized Judaism of his day. Even in the later years of the Third Reich, many Protestant and Catholic clergy within Germany persisted in believing that Nazism was in its essence in accordance with Christian precepts

Are you seriously going to cherry-pick only the "convenient" parts of your own source? Sure, there were dissenters, but there were many who believed in and worked with the Nazi's right through the war. There were very few atheists at that time.

Who's cherrypicking here? Even in the quotes you provided, you clearly show that the Nazis manipulated religion, as they did with much other things. The media was also on Hitlers hand, but nobody thinks to enforce media neutrality. Let's continue that line, Hitler used youth movements(I probably google translatered this into nonsense) like the Hitler Jugend, but everyone thinks the Scouts and such are a good idea. Never mind the fact that both of these have a far larger manipulative effect than religion, especially in our current society.

Adding on to that. Hitler was in control of the churches from the moment he took the governement, long before the war. This is what caused the dissidents. Also, adding on to that. If a country is mostly religious, how does that prove anything about the value of religion. There's no control group to speak of. There were nearly no atheists in germany, so how can you see that they would have been better, or that (the absence of) religion would have/ had any influence on the outcome.

((Also, quit modifying your post after I react to them. It's just low.))

[Leafsnail]

The media was also on Hitlers hand, but nobody thinks to enforce media neutrality.

I do

Let's continue that line, Hitler used youth movements(I probably google translatered this into nonsense) like the Hitler Jugend, but everyone thinks the Scouts and such are a good idea. Never mind the fact that both of these have a far larger manipulative effect than religion, especially in our current society.

I also oppose manipulative youth groups

[penguinofhonor]

Hitler people: calm down and cut the insults or stop arguing.

[Reelya]

please no ad-hominems. I added quotes and tried to clarify what I wrote, etc, I have not altered my argument in any way that could be called "low".

btw the original quote of yours that I was responding to is this one:

"What he didn't control where the churches, who went against it as much as they could. (Read, didn't openly support him. Most priests aren't crazy.)"

You were proven totally wrong, on that one, and you've been "moving the goalposts" ever since.
Hell, you proved yourself wrong, I didn't have to add much.

[Scoops Novel]

State of religion in the third world by 2050? By that time in the first world, i expect it to have lessened it's influence even further.

[10ebbor10]

State of religion in the third world by 2050? By that time in the first world, i expect it to have lessened it's influence even further.

It depends, actually. If there isn't any sort of major crisis, I don't expect any crazyness. However, with the incertainity of the future things could go in all directions.

[Scoops Novel]

Incidentally, how do the local religious fanatics explain the living standards of the west as opposed to their own?