quote:

---

Yeah, and how many people did those two tin-pot dictators kill, as opposed to how many the socialists did?

---

Doesn't it matter that they KILLED people, not how MANY people they killed? Apparently not.

quote:

---

You mean that there are people who DON'T want their countries to flourish economically? Oh, wait. I keep forgetting about the Democrats.

---

Oh so you're saying that only socialists are capable of killing more than capitalists?

Pinochet and Milosevic could have killed lots more if they wanted to. They just didn't. That doesn't mean that only Socialists are capable of mass murder. Again, a person's economic mindset does not determine the propensity of mass murder.

You mean that there are people who DON'T want their countries to flourish economically? Oh, wait. I keep forgetting about the Democrats.

That's NOT what I meant. Please don't twist my words around like that.

Of course the Democrats wanted their country to flourish economically. They just had different ideas. And I will end it there.

The danger comes from certain types of people being in power, regardless of beliefs. Thanks for helping make my point.

I believe that it is not the power given to a person that speaks of danger, I believe it is HOW that person uses that power. Power, like all "magical" forces, can be beneficial if used properly.

http://www.manwoman.net/swastika/swastika.html

I remember that a variation of the swastika was seen in a Buddhist temple when I was on a class trip in high school, and almost immediately, most classmates start to associate Buddhism, and the Chinese, with Naziism, a comparison that I DID NOT like.

One thing is clear though, the reasons for the use of the swastika in WWII appear to be consistent with its use in modern day racist (read "Christian") groups such as the Aryan Nations and the Heritage Front.

[ July 13, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]

Of course, if we go strictly 'by definition' as in "A follower of Christ" there AREN'T any Christians, and Christ hasn't been around to follow down the streets of Galilee.

However, according to the unabridged dictionary, 'by definition' a "Christian" is 1. One who believes or professes to believe in Jesus Christ.

...or whatever the point of this thread has become...

?

Tahna:

I'm not sure if that is an official account, since it is coming only from the mouth of Cecil Adams, who may or may not be a genuine historian.

Not a historian, but an uber-researcher. If something can be known, he can tell you. And he get's paid for it, unlike Rob.

the reasons for the use of the swastika in WWII appear to be consistent with its use in modern day racist (read "Christian") groups such as the Aryan Nations and the Heritage Front.

No, they don't. The swastika was used in Nazi Germany because it was considered a symbol of good luck and divine protection by... whoever. Now, it's used because they used it, and the modern racist (read: not Christian) groups that use it support the same things that Nazi Germany did.

I remember that a variation of the swastika was seen in a Buddhist temple when I was on a class trip in high school, and almost immediately, most classmates start to associate Buddhism, and the Chinese, with Naziism, a comparison that I DID NOT like.

Well, going by your logic, then the true followers of Islam have also not committed a crime as well.

Read that statement VERY CAREFULLY, and see if you get what I am getting at.

So you can imagine how I feel when you associate the symbol, Naziism, and Christianity with far less basis.

I'll drop the swastika on the basis of the article that I posted. I will say that it has been mentioned in many texts and voices that the Swastika was chosen on the basis that it was also a Christian symbol, as mentioned in that same article.

As for Naziism, it is not a legal offshoot of Christianity, though people who profess themselves in this particular group tend to associate themselves with Christianity. Why do they use those burning crosses anyways?

[ July 13, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]

quote:

---

Why do they use those burning crosses anyways?

---

Always wondered that myself. About Naziism and the Klan - they are equally abominable, yet while Naziism is abhored (well, not very much, not compared to Communism) in the States, the Klan are tolerated. Like in that very clever South Park ep where everyone is shocked at Cartman dressing up as Hitler for Hallowe'en, but not when he dresses up as a Klansman (even though he's meant to be a ghost in a white sheet).

[ July 16, 2001: Message edited by: Vogon Poet ]

Now, thirty years ago, they were (in my opinion, of course) a "Clear and Present Danger" to the National Security of the United States. Burning down churches, lynchings, etcetra ... I honestly don't understand how people can claim to worship the Christian "God" and do these things to others who worship the same "God" (this includes both Jews and Muslims, who also worship the same God, just differently).

Now, I was raised a Roman Catholic (interesting side note: my dad is Protestant. I'd be so loved in Northern Ireland). Which means the Klan does't care for me all that much either (even though I'm white with blue eyes).

quote:

---

You want to outlaw religion because of some perceived danger it presents? OK, how 'bout we outlaw all displays of communistic and socialistic beliefs, too. They've been responsible for nearly a hundred million deaths in this century alone, FAR more than you could possibly blame on any religion. Heck, I doubt that all religions combined have caused that many deaths throughout all of history.

---

The world's population has increased exponentially during the last two, three centuries. Just imagine how many deaths 'all religions combined' would have caused, had the atrocities taken place more recently.

But then, it doesn't matter how many people died, the fact that they died is more important. I despise the religious intolerance christianity and its zealously dedicated followers have (and still are) displayed.

Of course, that was a generalisation. Just like you did when you claimed that the communistic and socialistic beliefs, were responsible for the greatest loss in human lives.

quote:

---

HATRED of religion (in general or in specificity) has been a fundamental aspect of the beliefs of the three greatest murderers of the century: Stalin, Mao, and Hitler. When was the last time you heard about a bunch of Christians getting together and killing a few million people? Oh, wait. It's never happened, by definition.

---

I suggest you start catching up on history. Hitler himself, as has been pointed out many times already, was Christian. His hate was directed against the Jewish people (among other scapegoats), not their religious conviction.
Stalin could care less about what you believed in, as long as you were a (to use one of your terms) Commie. That was all that really mattered to him.

When was the last time you heard about a bunch of Christians getting together and killing a few million people?
Oh, I don't know, I'd say the entire period between 500 and 1500 A.C. - also known as the Dark Ages.

Burning down the church in question would be a hypocritical thing to do. Bulldozing it, however, might be viewed as urban renewal. Likewise the elimination of certain extremely bigoted social elements.

[ July 13, 2001: Message edited by: The_Evil_Lord ]