[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
orion wrote:
There is exactly one big issue fascists and socialists could never agree one.
Fascists wanted to control the economy by leave the day to day operation to the owners and socialist wanted to nationalize them and run them themselves.
That is about it.
The whole point of the article FI posted seems to be lost to me, unless he wanted to show that yes, indeed, fascism and socialism do have the same roots but manifested themselves differently in each country.
In the case of Germany they happily coexisted with a heavy dose of nationalism and racism. And, surprise those were also collectivist, totalitarian philosophies.
One could also argue that Stalins or Kim Jong-Ils regimes had lots of traits that are considered to be “fascist” by the left.
Like militarism, nationalism, cult of personality, the invention of an outward enemy to create unity within the country and so on.
Fascism, Socialism and Social democracy share many of the same assumptions, and the central assumption is that the collective is more important than the individual.
That ultimately leads to using other people as beasts of burden, no matter how you turn it.
It is modern religion, and the state is their God.
Idolatry if you will.
That is an argument I’ve always found interesting, more so with the Obamessiah talk slinging around.
That the ultimate liberal ideology is an encapsulation of religion, not an abolishment of it.
It certainly manifested itself in Nazism where you saw a merging of socialism, religion, and an all authoritative messiah figure. Kind of the belief that a Utopian, heaven like society is achievable on earth through the power of government.
Thoughts Irish? Care to accuse me of comparing Obama and Hitler? =0)
It is interesting insofar as Christian conservatives are pointing out that “liberals” think that the state has God-like powers and can bring about paradise on earth.
On the other hand they get pissed that “atheists” never waged a jihad because socialism and fascism are religion like.
I am afraid that that is a problem they themselves have to solve.
The religious folk killed and oppressed under state atheism would disagree. I know, I know, socialism (somewhow now a religion) warped their atheist minds. Could Christians then blame the economic and political regimes present at low and bloody points in our history? Fair is fair, after all.
You misrepresent the argument.
I know of no holy war in the name of atheism.
A lot of wars were waged to spread/stop the spread of national socialism, fascism and communism though, and these ideologies undoubtedly have quasi religious motifs as is pointed out by a lot of Christians today.
Now we’re back to quasi religious…Can’t you just admit that the secular and atheist is at least as likely to resort to bloodshed? Is it really painful to do so? I mean, where atheism has had power, state atheism, it’s wielded a bloody sword.
I think the point is that “state atheism” is a brand of religion. Or maybe to some point atheism can be a religion.
Which is kinda funny, because I flipped through a book in a book store the other day on “Atheist Spirituality”.[/quote]
It sounds to me like the arguement is that atheism, backed or corrupted by force (however you want to phrase it), is religiously inspired.
However, do I as a Christian get to argue that my religion is completely peaceful? That violent episodes in Christian history can be attributed to secular/governmental/this worldly concerns corrupting my religion? Let’s say, converting the heathens wasn’t so much the goal, as was the grabbing of land and resources? And, my otherwise peaceful religion was actually used by those more concerned with material/this worldy goals?
I don’t know. It’s just that everytime someone says, “Christianity was involved in bloodshed,” pointing to mayhem committed for the sake of atheism is met with “well, that’s actually religions fault, too.”
