So, I thought I'd run this, by you


2ndRateMind
 Share

Recommended Posts

This guy phoned me, out of the blue. He was campaigning for human rights for Iranians.

 

Not my top priority, I told him. And I don't have a useful amount of money to donate.

 

Anyway, as the conversation progressed, it turned out two of his brothers had been executed by the regime, and he has an uncle in danger of the same.

 

Well, that's sad. But my attention is turned towards those who die of hunger, in this age of plenty.

 

So, anyway, I got to thinking about human rights, and how they exist in 'civilised' Christian nations, and don't in 'civilised' Muslim nations. How our politicians serve us (allegedly) and how their politicians make no such pretence, and serve themselves. And it seems to me the difference is this; the notion of sacrifice, and the example of Jesus. I'm in favour of human rights, everywhere, for everybody. But unless they are extended by the powerful to the powerless, I don't see how they can happen. And that will only occur if our leaders love us, and want the best for us, instead of loving themselves, and wanting the best for themselves. And that can only happen, I submit, in a Christian leadership of a Christian nation.

 

Is, then, the project of my Iranian friend doomed from the outset?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, your Iranian friend is likely dead if he does anything to cause those threatening his family any problems. Even in the U.S., it wouldn't be the first time someone from a Muslum nation came here to kill a problem.

 

For your other question, it is an interesting idea, but you have some rather common errors in idea.  The first is your statement "But unless they are extended by the powerful to the powerless, I don't see how they can happen. And that will only occur if our leaders love us, and want the best for us, instead of loving themselves, and wanting the best for themselves. And that can only happen, I submit, in a Christian leadership of a Christian nation."   I'm not going to touch the Christianity part of it because there are successful and reasonably free countries that are not particularly Christian, but you are correct that Islam does seem to correlate in a nearly 1:1 ratio with tyrannical dictatorships.

 

The error you make is in saying "...unless they are extended by the powerful to the powerless...". This is an extremely common error being made now, and implies a line of thought (one encouraged by those who want to maintain power by the way), that power comes from the government and is then granted to the people in the form of rights. 

 

This attitude is essentially the same as divine right of kings.  Whether or not you believe God gives someone the power or the power is just somehow there, isn't really relevant.  Under such an attitude, the powerful have power and grant rights to the less powerful.  This means that it is only through their benevolence that anyone rises above the level of even a slave.

 

The alternate viewpoint is that human rights exist independent of any government or base of power.  In countries like Iran, the powerful are then simply violating already existent rights. It may seem like a subtle distinction, but it is an important one.  Those rights are yours, and while those rights can be violated, they are still your rights, they are not granted.

 

Here's the really scary thing though.  No government (or other form of similar power base) has ever been able to rule over a country without consent of those being ruled, either passively through lack of resistance or more often a sufficiently large portion actively supporting the oppressors.

 

You might argue that it's difficult for the peasant class to fight against an army, but the army has to come from somewhere, and if a large enough proportion of the people is unwilling to support the oppressor, he can't oppress.

 

Let's look at what happened in Romania in the early 1990's when the Iron Curtain fell.  The Soviet Union had, for several decades, enough support from its people to maintain a large enough army to effectively oppress several of its satellite countries like East Germany, Poland, Romania and others. 

 

When the Soviet style communism started to not work so well for the Soviets, they started to pull back.  I still remember the news reports of what happened in Romania.  It didn't get the coverage of the Berlin wall, it wasn't as dramatic, probably because it was so fast. 

 

The day that the Soviets stopped being involved, a revolution started.  I remember seeing it on the news as I was leaving for school that morning.  By the time I got home, the revolution was over, and the rulers deposed.  By the next morning they had bee tried and executed.

 

Let me say that again.  Less than 24 hours after the Soviets stopped propping up their puppet, the people of Romania, including the army, overthrew the government, captured the leadership, arrested them, tried them (and yes I understand that there was a trial), convicted them, and executed them.

 

The problem in Iran and places like it isn't that the people are oppressed, it's that a sufficient number of them support the oppressors to give the oppressors the power they need to commit the oppression. The other problem in a lot of middle eastern countries is that every small religious and ethnic group seems to be absolutely intent on oppressing every other group. Even the advocates of human rights there don't seem to acknowledge individual freedoms such as the freedom to not be Muslim, or to stop being Muslim.

 

Honestly the reason for the oppression in places like Iran is because enough of the people want it, or are willing to support it, that it continues to exist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless

To say that Muslim nations don't favor civil liberty is painting with a pretty broad brush. I'd challenge you to look at countries like Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, and Kuwait before condemning all Muslim nations as oppressive.

I also wouldn't be do quick to praise Christian societies as champions of human rights. The most fundamentally Christian regions of our country are quickly becoming the final battlegrounds for issues like gay marriage and women's health (not to mention the fact that I can't buy beer before noon on Sunday in the state of TX). The oppressed in our country are admittedly less so than in many muslim states, but I definitely see patterns between conservative dogma in general and decreased liberty. We may not be beheading rape victims, but our culture doesn't exactly incline them to an easy healing process either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you sure you weren't talking to a scammer trying to prey on your sympathies for his "plight"?

 

Yeah, I'm pretty sure. In my dotage, I've got pretty good at seeing through scammers. And, the conversation seemed to me to be genuine, and not scripted. I was invited to an 'event', to meet more Iranians, and discuss the movement more fully. And, surely, the extension of human rights into the middle east must be 'a good thing'. I truly hope the campaign makes progress. I just worry that, in a nation without Jesus, and the example of sacrifice, and the conception of leadership as service, those that fight for human rights will need to fight for power, and, once they have it, won't be that keen on human rights for those they have deposed from privilege.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say that Muslim nations don't favor civil liberty is painting with a pretty broad brush. I'd challenge you to look at countries like Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, and Kuwait before condemning all Muslim nations as oppressive.

 

 

Actually, all these states are pretty conservative Muslim, which, in the liberal west, equates to the far right wing of politics. I know this, because I have lived there. Just because they trade liberally, and advertise on CNN, doesn't mean their citizens and residents enjoy the kind of human rights we would take for granted.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The error you make is in saying "...unless they are extended by the powerful to the powerless...". This is an extremely common error being made now, and implies a line of thought (one encouraged by those who want to maintain power by the way), that power comes from the government and is then granted to the people in the form of rights. 

 

This attitude is essentially the same as divine right of kings.  Whether or not you believe God gives someone the power or the power is just somehow there, isn't really relevant.  Under such an attitude, the powerful have power and grant rights to the less powerful.  This means that it is only through their benevolence that anyone rises above the level of even a slave.

 

The alternate viewpoint is that human rights exist independent of any government or base of power.  In countries like Iran, the powerful are then simply violating already existent rights. It may seem like a subtle distinction, but it is an important one.  Those rights are yours, and while those rights can be violated, they are still your rights, they are not granted.

 

 

 

Yes, I can see your point. It troubles me, though, this idea that human rights exist somewhere 'out there', in the ether, independently of the people, their leaders, and the law. I sympathise with the sentiment, but cannot wholly agree with it. Seems to me that unless you have a system of the rule of law, and unless that law determines the human rights of the people, then those human rights, however much we might endorse their implementation, don't actually exist. They are, in that case, an idea of how things might be better, rather than an actuality. Rights have a subtle ontology, and no existence at all, I suggest, unless we grant them to one to another, each according to our power.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2RM, your post is religious bigotry.

You (and all Americans) need to learn the difference between a culture and a religion and the history of each. To believe that human rights is only available in Christian leadership is beyond naïveté. After all, Israel is predominantly non-Christian and so are most Asian countries and the British and Spaniards led the world in Christianity in the imperial age and practiced human rights suppression daily. As the European culture started to look towards progressivism, so did the predominantly Muslim people under the reign of the Ottomans. The Ottomans rivaled the West in libertarian practices. It wasn't until the war between the west and the Ottmans that progressivism in the Middle East stopped. This was mainly contributed to by the previously-Ottomans' mistrust and burning hatred for the west as they won the war. So much so that the Ottoman's embrace of western progressivism did a pivot and became tainted as evil. The vacuum of power and the vacillating western culture who are on a learning phase fresh out of colonial mentality led to the atrocities of "CERTAIN" leaders who found a tool in twisting the Islam faith and using the people's mistrust of the west to maintain power.

In the Middle East, Iran (one of only two non-Arab Muslim nations), is the most progressive of all. But, the British and Americans have made errors in their involvement in the Iranian govt that contributed to the spaghetti govt that they got stuck with.

Advice to you: Stop blaming religion for every cruelty humans are capable of... Especially religions you have no idea about. Just think how terrible it is for the LDS if the world judges the religion based on the Mountain Meadow Massacre.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Anatess, I can see how you might read my post as bigotry. And that is why I wanted to run my thinking, by you. But, I need to correct a couple of your misapprehensions.

 

  • I am English, not American.
  • I am non-denominational Christian, not LDS.
  • I am not blaming religions for the barbarity of cultures, but I am asking if a world view that specifically excludes Jesus is capable of spawning human rights. I have explained my thinking in this regard, and it is rational, and therefore counts as philosophy, as opposed to bigotry.
  • Asian countries do not, generally, have a good human rights record. Check out China, North Korea, Myanmar (Burma), Vietnam, Thailand, Sri Lanka etc.
  • As for Israel, it seems to me that human rights are extended to Israeli Jews (the powerful) entirely to the exclusion of Palestinian Muslims (the powerless).
  • I am only slightly concerned with the past, as explanation for the present, but am greatly concerned with the future, which is where we all will live, tomorrow.

 

Now, would you like to make your point, whatever it was, more cogently?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is very concerns and does devote a great deal of money for human rights – especially religious rights.  Dr Durham (a professor of Law at BYU) considers his efforts to engage religious rights throughout the world as an inspired calling from G-d.   If anyone wishes to donate to a worthy cause of human rights and religious rights world wide – I suggest you contact BYU and offer to make a contribution to the work of Dr. Durham.  I would suggest for specific help that your phone caller contact Dr. Durham and though you may not have sufficient amounts of gold and silver to give – you are not without effort to bring about human religious rights – even in Iran.    It may surprise readers to know that Dr. Durham has had influence even in Iran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, anyway, I got to thinking about human rights, and how they exist in 'civilised' Christian nations, and don't in 'civilised' Muslim nations. How our politicians serve us (allegedly) and how their politicians make no such pretence, and serve themselves. And it seems to me the difference is this; the notion of sacrifice, and the example of Jesus. I'm in favour of human rights, everywhere, for everybody. But unless they are extended by the powerful to the powerless, I don't see how they can happen. And that will only occur if our leaders love us, and want the best for us, instead of loving themselves, and wanting the best for themselves. And that can only happen, I submit, in a Christian leadership of a Christian nation.

I do think that the flowering of the idea of human rights primarily out of the Judeo-Christian tradition is no accident; but I approach things more cynically. It's not that Christian governors are more magnanimous or benevolent; it's that they are confronted by a mass of people who say "I have inalienable rights endowed by my Creator; and I will pick up a gun and risk you sending me to meet Him prematurely rather than let you treat me and my family like cattle." The leaders get scared, and they make concessions, and we call it "liberty".

This is also why all the great dictators--from Nero to Caligula and on through Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler--loathed Christianity. Contra Marx, Christianity was not an opiate making the proletariat more tractable--it was a magnifying lens that made the evils of totalitarianism plainly visible.

As for Islamic culture? I suppose it's hard to generalize; but I've yet to see how Sharia law leads to a particularly notable level of liberty or even tolerance--at least, not beyond a particular "in-group" that seems even to exclude many Muslims. I would love to be proven wrong, though.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Just_A_Guy, you should not think I disagree with the thrust of your post. My hope is that the example of human rights from Christian nations will eventually spread throughout the world. The Arab spring is surely a sign that these ideals about the integrity and dignity of the human condition have resonance. It just worries me that one disenfranchised group will bloodily seize power from some elite, only to become an elite, and disenfranchise some other group, who, in turn, will bloodily seize power... We see this process beginning to run it's course in Iraq, with the Sunni/Shia conflict and the so-called Islamic State.

 

The thing is, Christian leaders are already sympathetic to the idea that people should not be treated like cattle, or used as a means toward some selfish end. There are some notable, rare exceptions - Tibet springs to mind - but generally, outside Christendom, the accumulation of power is for the benefit of the powerful, rather than to make the world a better place, which is how I (perhaps naively) interpret the motivations of Western leaders, 

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy phoned me, out of the blue. He was campaigning for human rights for Iranians.

 

Not my top priority, I told him. And I don't have a useful amount of money to donate.

 

Anyway, as the conversation progressed, it turned out two of his brothers had been executed by the regime, and he has an uncle in danger of the same.

 

Well, that's sad. But my attention is turned towards those who die of hunger, in this age of plenty.

 

So, anyway, I got to thinking about human rights, and how they exist in 'civilised' Christian nations, and don't in 'civilised' Muslim nations. How our politicians serve us (allegedly) and how their politicians make no such pretence, and serve themselves. And it seems to me the difference is this; the notion of sacrifice, and the example of Jesus. I'm in favour of human rights, everywhere, for everybody. But unless they are extended by the powerful to the powerless, I don't see how they can happen. And that will only occur if our leaders love us, and want the best for us, instead of loving themselves, and wanting the best for themselves. And that can only happen, I submit, in a Christian leadership of a Christian nation.

 

Is, then, the project of my Iranian friend doomed from the outset?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

it's always going to be an uphill battle, especially as too often does a battle for rights over extend itself and deny those rights to others or mutates a principle or it gets smothered by the opposition. and thats before the politicians muck it up.

happens even in "civilised" nations.

best of wishes and luck to the fellow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Anatess, I can see how you might read my post as bigotry. And that is why I wanted to run my thinking, by you. But, I need to correct a couple of your misapprehensions.

 

  • I am English, not American.

 

 

Irrelevant.  I live in America, hence, I added not just you, but also all Americans (can't speak for the British.  I don't live there.  All I know of them and Muslim relations is the seeming rise of the Muslim population in Great Britain.).

 

 

I am non-denominational Christian, not LDS.

 

 

Also irrelevant.  I'm fairly certain you have heard of the Mountain Meadow Massacre.  If not, google it.

 

 

I am not blaming religions for the barbarity of cultures, but I am asking if a world view that specifically excludes Jesus is capable of spawning human rights. I have explained my thinking in this regard, and it is rational, and therefore counts as philosophy, as opposed to bigotry.

 

 

I never blamed you for blaming religions for the barbarity of cultures.  I blamed you for the bigotry of thinking only Christian nations are capable of "spawning" human rights, concluding that the concept of sacrifice is only taught by Jesus, completely ignoring an entire history of non-Christian sacrifice with Ghandi being the most popular.  It is not rational nor philosophical.  It is bigotry, plain and simple.

 

 

Asian countries do not, generally, have a good human rights record. Check out China, North Korea, Myanmar (Burma), Vietnam, Thailand, Sri Lanka etc.

 

China, Japan, and Malaysia (Toaism/Buddhism, Confucianism, and Islam) have a higher ranking in the Human Rights scale than Argentina, Mexico, and Philippines (predominantly Catholic).  United Arab Emirates (a predominantly Islam country in Asia) is head to head with Britain (Protestant) in the Human Rights ranking and higher than the United States (Judeo-Christian).

 

The highest ranking in Human Rights scale - Sweden, where only 18% of the population (even though over 60% of them are Lutherans) claim to believe in the Christian God.  The lowest ranking in the Human Rights scale?  Congo - Christian.  And not too far up from Congo is Central African Republic and Rwanda - both Christians.

 

Again... culture versus religion.

 

 

As for Israel, it seems to me that human rights are extended to Israeli Jews (the powerful) entirely to the exclusion of Palestinian Muslims (the powerless).

 

Ahhh... now I see where you're getting your info from.  The same news sources that the politically and historically mind-numb section of Americans get their news sources from... and your disinterest in history (and even current events) will always keep you handicapped... which then brings you to say naive things like you just said above.

 

In case you didn't know, Israel and Palestine are at war.  Rockets fly back and forth between the two.  Muslims in Palestine kill anybody in Israel - Jews or Muslim or anybody in between - to try to expand their territory.  Jews in Israel kill anybody in Palestine - Muslim, Jew, or Christian trying to kill Israelis in their grab for territory.  That's what happens in war.

 

 

 

  • I am only slightly concerned with the past, as explanation for the present, but am greatly concerned with the future, which is where we all will live, tomorrow.

 

And this is why you don't understand what shapes the present and future.  You might wanna change that.

 

 

 

 

Now, would you like to make your point, whatever it was, more cogently?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't cogent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to agree with Dallin H. Oaks, that there is a direct link between "Christian" principles and our freedoms. 

 

 

It was the Christian principles of human worth and dignity that made possible the formation of the United States Constitution over 200 years ago, and only those principles in the hearts of a majority of our diverse population can sustain that constitution today. Our constitution’s revolutionary concepts of sovereignty in the people and significant guarantees of personal rights were, as John A. Howard has written,

 
“generated by a people for whom Christianity had been for a century and a half the compelling feature of their lives. It was Jesus who first stated that all men are created equal [and] that every person . . . is valued and loved by God.”[xviii]
 
Professor Dinesh D’Souza reminds us:
 
“The attempt to ground respect for equality on a purely secular basis ignores the vital contribution by Christianity to its spread. It is folly to believe that it could survive without the continuing aid of religious belief.”[xix]
 
Religious values and political realities are so interlinked in the origin and perpetuation of this nation that we cannot lose the influence of Christianity in the public square without seriously jeopardizing our freedoms. I maintain that this is a political fact, well qualified for argument in the public square by religious people whose freedom to believe and act must always be protected by what is properly called our “First Freedom,” the free exercise of religion.
 
My dear brothers and sisters, I testify to the truth of these principles I have expressed today. I testify of Jesus Christ, our Savior, who is the author and finisher of our faith and whose revelations to a prophet of God in these modern times have affirmed the foundation of the United States constitution, which as we have said, was given by God to His children for the rights and protection of all flesh. May God bless us to understand it, to sustain it, and to spread its influence throughout the world, I pray, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/oaks-religious-freedom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... and Hitler--loathed Christianity. ....

 

Hitler loathed Christianity?  Do you understand what was the meaning of "The 3rd Reich"?  The German word Reich in essence means empire or kingdom - Reich is the word used in the German version of the Bible for "Kingdom" in the L-rd's prayer.  In particular what was the first and second Reich that Hitler intended to "restore"?  I will help a little - the first Reich was the Holy Roman empire - which was by definition "Christian".  The second Reich was considered by Germans to be a time when a German was the Catholic Pope.

 

Sorry; but I become concerned when there are efforts to distort actual history.  There are current efforts to again distort history concerning the corruption of Hitler's Germany - in calling the Nazi's a right winged political philosophy.  The word Nazi specifically references "socialism" which is by every definition left wing political philosophy - not right wing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Anatess, as best as I can ascertain, between the insults and rhetoric, your case is this:

        i) I am wrong in my belief that it is Christianity that spawns human rights,

and  ii) because I am wrong about that, I am bigoted.

 

Well, I was going to answer all your post in detail, refuting each specious point in turn, but frankly, I can't be bothered. Even Gandhi, your lone example of political leadership from a non-Christian background whose human rights record is exemplary, specifically chose his strategy of non-violent non-cooperation with authority because he understood Christianity, and knew very well what would confound the 'Christian' imperialist regime.

 

Now, I do not hold that everything any Christian nation has ever done has been right, and everything any non-Christian nation has ever done has been wrong. This seems to be the position you are arguing against, and it is so obviously indefensible I wonder why you waste your time. I am quite happy to concede there may be some non-Christian nations with good human rights records, and some nominally Christian nations with worse ones. None of that addresses my central contention; that without the conception of leadership as service, whom Jesus was the first to embody, and the example of sacrifice, whose perfect implementation we find in Jesus, we would have no human rights, at all. Instead, we would be locked in to a perpetual cycle of the exploitation of the powerless by the powerful, with the only change being the specific roll-calls of the powerful and powerless, according to the outcome of this or that war.

 

Now, this might be a false and wrong-headed contention. But that does not make me bigoted. I am quite happy to discuss the matter, ideally in respectful and agreeable ways, and alter my conclusion if stronger, better counter-arguments can be made. Bigotry is a matter of irrational, block-headed prejudice that retains it's stupidities despite evidence and reason, and you will find, if you choose to engage me in polite conversation, I am far from that way inclined.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Anatess, as best as I can ascertain, between the insults and rhetoric, your case is this:

        i) I am wrong in my belief that it is Christianity that spawns human rights,

and  ii) because I am wrong about that, I am bigoted.

 

Well, I was going to answer all your post in detail, but frankly, I can't be bothered. Even Gandhi, your lone example of political leadership from a non-Christian background whose human rights record is exemplary, specifically chose his strategy of non-violent non-cooperation with authority because he understood Christianity, and knew very well what would confound the 'Christian' imperialist regime.

 

Now, I do not hold that everything any Christian nation has ever done has been right, and everything any non-Christian nation has ever done has been wrong. This seems to be the position you are arguing against, and it is so obviously indefensible I wonder why you waste your time. I am quite happy to concede there may be some non-Christian nations with good human rights records, and some nominally Christian nations with worse ones. None of that addresses my central contention; that without the conception of leadership as service, whom Jesus was the first embody, and the example of sacrifice, whose perfect implementation we find in Jesus, we would have no human rights, at all. Instead, we would be locked in to a perpetual cycle of the exploitation of the powerless by the powerful, with the only change being the specific roll-calls of the powerful and powerless, according to the outcome of this or that war.

 

Now, this might be a false and wrong-headed contention. But that does not make me bigoted. I am quite happy to discuss the matter, ideally in respectful and agreeable ways, and alter my conclusion if stronger, better counter-arguments can be made. Bigotry is a matter of irrational, block-headed prejudice that retains it's stupidities despite evidence and reason, and you will find, if you choose to engage me in polite conversation, I am far from that way inclined.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

There are some things in which I think you make a good point - others I think you are off target.  Gandhi was converted to Jesus Christ but he did not call himself Christian because he did not believe that Christianity was actually connected to the teachings of Jesus.

 

I think the point in which you miss the target is connected to the "Great Apostasy" where Christianity was greatly influenced by Hellenistic philosophy that also corrupted what we mostly refer to today as Paganism.  I believe that human rights have always been an unalterable tenet of the true path or way of G-d as taught to the first man Adam.  It is at the core of the conflict between good and evil.  I believe that apostasy can be measured in history by directly referencing the propensity of a society to subvert human rights - current conditions being applicable. 

 

Where I may disagree with some concerning human rights is the right of children to be raised in a loving marriage institution supporting such institution as the primary responsibility of their biological parents.

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sorry; but I become concerned when there are efforts to distort actual history.  There are current efforts to again distort history concerning the corruption of Hitler's Germany - in calling the Nazi's a right winged political philosophy.  The word Nazi specifically references "socialism" which is by every definition left wing political philosophy - not right wing. 

 

I notice that North Korea calls itself 'the Democratic People's Republic of Korea'. That does not make it democratic, or the people's, or a republic. So it is with 'Nationalsozialismus', National Socialism, or Nazism. Do not be deceived by the cynical names of nations and regimes. Fascism is about as far right as you can get, whatever it's proponents might prefer to allege, and choose as it's disingenuous label.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice that North Korea calls itself 'the Democratic People's Republic of Korea'. That does not make it democratic, or the people's, or a republic. So it is with 'Nationalsozialismus', National Socialism, or Nazism. Do not be deceived by the cynical names of nations and regimes. Fascism is about as far right as you can get, whatever it's proponents might prefer to allege, and choose as it's disingenuous label.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

I've been with you this far 2RM but must jump off at this point. It's not the fact that you're European, the Socialist in the U.S. have the same reaction. Both Hitler and Mussolini's rise to power was through Socialism not Capitalism that's well established and impossible to refute. It certainly helps recruitment, but the name bending doesn't scale with the facts.

 

Speaking of fascist dictators Thomas Sowell said - 

 

 

Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely -- and correctly -- regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg's great book "Liberal Fascism" cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists' consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left's embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.

 
Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left.
 
It was in the 1930s, when ugly internal and international actions by Hitler and Mussolini repelled the world, that the left distanced themselves from fascism and its Nazi offshoot -- and verbally transferred these totalitarian dictatorships to the right, saddling their opponents with these pariahs.
What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people -- like themselves -- need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.
The left's vision is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision of themselves, as superior beings pursuing superior ends. In the United States, however, this vision conflicts with a Constitution that begins, "We the People..."
 
That is why the left has for more than a century been trying to get the Constitution's limitations on government loosened or evaded by judges' new interpretations, based on notions of "a living Constitution" that will take decisions out of the hands of "We the People," and transfer those decisions to our betters.

 Socialist or Fascist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I've been with you this far 2RM but must jump off at this point. It's not the fact that you're European, the Socialist in the U.S. have the same reaction. Both Hitler and Mussolini's rise to power was through Socialism not Capitalism...

 

Hmmm. This is tangential to the main thrust and intent of the thread, but I'm happy to follow it and see where it goes.

 

The Google definition of Fascism gives me: 

an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

 

 

However, this wikipedia article admits a more complex interpretation.

 

My own suspicion is that the political right see advantage in disentangling right-wing politics from any taint of fascism, and are really quite eager to assign fascist ideology and policies to the left wing of the debate, and so escape any possibility of their own guilt by association, while simultaneously condemning their liberal/socialist foes to such.

 

I do not think this is a wholly reputable tactic.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Anatess, as best as I can ascertain, between the insults and rhetoric, your case is this:

        i) I am wrong in my belief that it is Christianity that spawns human rights,

and  ii) because I am wrong about that, I am bigoted.

 

Well, I was going to answer all your post in detail, refuting each specious point in turn, but frankly, I can't be bothered. Even Gandhi, your lone example of political leadership from a non-Christian background whose human rights record is exemplary, specifically chose his strategy of non-violent non-cooperation with authority because he understood Christianity, and knew very well what would confound the 'Christian' imperialist regime.

 

Now, I do not hold that everything any Christian nation has ever done has been right, and everything any non-Christian nation has ever done has been wrong. This seems to be the position you are arguing against, and it is so obviously indefensible I wonder why you waste your time. I am quite happy to concede there may be some non-Christian nations with good human rights records, and some nominally Christian nations with worse ones. None of that addresses my central contention; that without the conception of leadership as service, whom Jesus was the first to embody, and the example of sacrifice, whose perfect implementation we find in Jesus, we would have no human rights, at all. Instead, we would be locked in to a perpetual cycle of the exploitation of the powerless by the powerful, with the only change being the specific roll-calls of the powerful and powerless, according to the outcome of this or that war.

 

Now, this might be a false and wrong-headed contention. But that does not make me bigoted. I am quite happy to discuss the matter, ideally in respectful and agreeable ways, and alter my conclusion if stronger, better counter-arguments can be made. Bigotry is a matter of irrational, block-headed prejudice that retains it's stupidities despite evidence and reason, and you will find, if you choose to engage me in polite conversation, I am far from that way inclined.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

I regularly wonder if you are on this forum to actually open-minded discuss things or are just here to espouse your own personal theories and to try to tell others that they are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share