Setanta wrote:His motive, publicly stated, was racial purification. Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies and Slavs were all alleged to be subhuman. It was the very quintessence of racism.
Very well summed up Set. Absolutely. Hitler was only interested in religion in so far as he could use it to garner popular support and the thing he lusted after most of all...power.
George's "chip on his shoulder" protestations about political rectitude notwithstanding, i have always been an equal opportunity insulter of organized religious belief, for my own part--and don't see that he has a reasonable basis upon which to pout.
That does not equate to condemning racism or homophobia. And the topic of the Holocaust is one of racism, not religious persecution.
georgeob1 wrote:Lash wrote:I don't notice widescale censure of people, who say negative things about other books and religious figures.
I am in protest of that hypocritical disparity.
Lash is correct in that one can easily get away with criticism of Christian symbols or beliefs which are as intemperately stated as his/her earlier statement about Mohammed & Islam. Similar things are increasingly said about Judiasm & Istrael (though far more in Europe than in the U.S.). At the same time an unkind word about Islam or environmentalists, homosexuals, or any of the other like contemporarily "favored" groups gets one instant and unequivocal condemnation. This hypocrisy seems to go unnoticed in the general domain of political correctitude/
<sigh of relief>
This is how someone with patience and eloquence would explain the point I've been trying to make.
I will cop to "intemperate," and would understand if someone said they were offended by my remarks about Mohammad and the Koran. I just can't abide someone turning my words into something else.
Set-- You are rare in the equal opportunity religion debaser category. And, I've appreciated that. (Odd comment, but true.)
Setanta wrote:George's "chip on his shoulder" protestations about political rectitude notwithstanding, i have always been an equal opportunity insulter of organized religious belief, for my own part--and don't see that he has a reasonable basis upon which to pout.
That does not equate to condemning racism or homophobia. And the topic of the Holocaust is one of racism, not religious persecution.
One can always count on Setanta for a pedantic or merely petulant observation or two. While he may well be a consistent critic of religion in any form, many others are not - indeed they are just as I described. The excursion from the original topic of the thread had ben underway for a page or so, and was hardly a significant departure from the central idea. Racism is alive and well - it is just practiced against different targets today bu practicioners who display all the self-righteous hypocrisy of those who preceded them. Interesting to note that Setanta "does not equate" criticism of religion with racism or homophobia. He is the very model of a modern Babbit.
georgeob1
Sorry you miss the point. Islamaphobia is not the issue here. Its manifestation such as "insults to the prophet" simply bear no comparison to the atrocities of the holocaust.
F4F is playing Hitler's own game of spreading the simplistic poison of a "Jewish/Zionist conspiracy". If you Google his references they are all from "conspiracy websites". (Have a look at them. You will find photos of prominent Nazis as avatars.) Just like David Irving's failed attempt, F4F is using the "free speech angle" as a Trojan horse virus.
No Babbit i . . . i don't equate slaughtering people for racial reason, nor because they are homosexual, with belittling someone's imaginary friend superstition--of that there need be no doubt.
fresco--
I understand what you're saying. I interjected something I wanted compared here, in the context of the discussion about anti-Semitism.
To me, and to a few others, the strident protection of Islam, alongside heinous anti-Semitic remarks is a vital part of this dialogue.
I don't miss many opportunities to bring attention to the disparity.
Your sentence is the very thing I get into so many squabbles about: "Its manifestation such as "insults to the prophet" simply bear no comparison to the atrocities of the holocaust."
I insulted a supposed prophet--and which statements on the thread were angrier-- which reaction was more vocal? The one against a prophet and a book--not the murder of the Holocaust victims.
An important point, I think.
But, my heart agrees with you, of course. As, from his statements, does George.
fresco,
I really don't understand what you are getting at here. I gave a fairly complete response to F4F's screed a few pages back. Paraniid theories about the Holocaust conspiracy are like those involving 'who really shot JFK' etc. There are always appetities for such crackpot ideas, but very few people take them seriously. However compounding the problem with more or less equivalent crap about Islam, or anyone else for that matter, does no good either, There is no shortage of self-serving hypocrisy out there, just as there is no shortage of intolerance. Only the preferred conventional objects oif both change over time.
I think those of us who are still here are all on the same side.
We should save our ire for those who earn it.
Peace.
fresco wrote: F4F is using the "free speech angle" as a Trojan horse virus.
I suspect you might be right but on another thread he apologised profusely when he made the mistake of introducing a Jewish dimension to a child porn story...(taken from blatantly anti semitic sites) sorry cant just link at the moment.
I think that's the one linked earlier in this thread by Cliff, which appeared immediately before I slammed Mohammad.
I also think he caved because he was getting his ass handed to him.
I think one of the problems that arises in such a discussion is that Hitler capitalized on a racist sentiment which had its origins in religious bigotry. That being acknowledged, it should not be forgotten that his motive was racism. That was why homosexuals (as being "subhuman"), Gypsies and Slavs were also targeted. In fact, homosexuals were one of the first targets for internment, and the "pink" symbol which homosexuals sport today first appeared in Germany in the same context as the yellow Star of David.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the Jews only have a comparatively better record on slaughter in the name of religion. They only snuffed a few pastoral tribes in Palestine a few thousand years ago, and were materially and militarily incapable of doing any more damage than that, especially in light of the historical timeline, which saw them entering Palestine at the time of the rise of the Assyrians, the most militarily effective culture of the ancient middle east--that is, until the Medes and Persians arrived.
The Jews never really had the opportunity to wreak upon their neighbors the kind of slaughter at which Christians and Muslims excelled. The history of modern Israel from 1945 to the present, however, suggests that they were never necessarily averse to such antics. We have a particular member here, whom i will not name as that member does not appear in this thread, who is one of the most rabid "Isalmophobes" you could imagine, and is either a Jew NOC, or an Israeli Jew.
In discussing the Holocaust, the topic is racism, not religion.
Lash wrote:I also think he caved because he was getting his ass handed to him.
heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .
okbye
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:fresco wrote: F4F is using the "free speech angle" as a Trojan horse virus.
I suspect you might be right but on another thread he apologised profusely when he made the mistake of introducing a Jewish dimension to a child porn story...(taken from blatantly anti semitic sites) sorry cant just link at the moment.
He apologised profusely and I wasn't too convinced by it--he got his ass-whipped by a lot of us and probably feared social rejection in the forum. But sure enough, he's returned under a "softer" tone. He can't help himself with his Nazi urges. He didn't choose to be a Nazi, poor thing, he was just born that way.
There weather here today is very wicked . . . umbrellas won't help . . .
Setanta wrote:
In discussing the Holocaust, the topic is racism, not religion.
A fine distinction at best . One could as well have said culture.
Intolerance and persecution are more or less the same, regardless of the particular asinine distinction used to rationalize them. It is a supreme act of hypocrisy to excuse one and condemn another,
georgeob1 wrote:Setanta wrote:
In discussing the Holocaust, the topic is racism, not religion.
A fine distinction at best . One could as well have said culture.
Intolerance and persecution are more or less the same, regardless of the particular asinine distinction used to rationalize them. It is a supreme act of hypocrisy to excuse one and condemn another,
Certainly from past experience, one perforce assumes your personal, close relationship with hypocricy qualifies you speak with more authority than any other here.
Hilter's reason for killing Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies and Slavs was that they were "subhuman." Sorry if that doesn't coincide with your childish snit, or your Chicken Little secular humanist conspiracy theory--but, it only happens to be the truth.
By the way, i'm not intolerant of religion or culture. I just find the former hilariously dull-witted and superstitious, and the latter fascinating.
I don't want to pee on yer Wheaties, though, Georgie Boy, you just rant to your little heart's content. Your superior rage is quite amusing.
