The things they do in the name of religion

[Scorpio 0]

A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on. However he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village, however selling the meat to the next door village should be fine.

-Ayatollah Khomeini, Tahrirolvasyleh, fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990.

SOURCE?! I havn't seen anywhere that he said that. I do smell bullshit.

[edit] Ahh sorry, it's actually true he said that...just checked some other sources. Sick and twisted, this guy.

Wow!  I had never heard that.  That is pretty sick.  One of the problems with the Shi'ite is that they treat their Ayatollahs like a Pope or something and are supposed to abide by what their Ayatollah decrees.   So I'm sure alot of Iranians are happily humping sheep.  

Wait... I was born in Iran.... Hmmm....   "Baaaaaaaaaah!".    

Lambchops anyone?

LOL!

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

LOL. I seriously am very confused. I thought Komeini was a good guy...its probably just his enemies (which btw didn't want an Islamic replublic for Iran) who are making up a load of bullshit about him. Propaganda these days.

When he died, Iran turned into a shithole and soon after Iraq-Iran war.

Besides, think about it...even the craziest of scholars wouldn't say such a thing.

[denoir 0]

I thought Komeini was a good guy...

Khomeini a good guy?   He is a poster boy for muslim fundamentalism. He came to power through an incredibly bloody revolution and was resposible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. A good guy?  

Khomeini bio 1

Khomeini bio 2

"If one permits an infidel to continue in his role as a corrupter of the earth, his moral suffering will be all the worse. If one kills the infidel, and this stops him from perpetrating his misdeeds, his death will be a blessing to him."

[Scorpio 0]

I tend not to believe such things though. Unless I see clear proof in a video of a lecture, then I'd dismiss it as a rumour. One can easily say something and it spreads out and becomes a 'fact'.

e:btw, nice to see one of the 'bios' coming from rotten.com

[Apollo 0]

From a western point of view ,khomeini is a monster ,from a shiiti point of view he's probably a respected muslim.His religious doctrines are not much more fanatical than when the pope issue's a ban on using condom's IMO.

In any case ,this religious Iranian society is stands very far from the Western democratic model.In Iranian society ,hereditry is more determinal than merit when it comes to making a carreer ,it is a very elitists society where one can be exluded of even if only one of his distant family relative's has done something wrong long ago.In Iran ,just like in China in the cultural revolution ,one 'bad appel" in youre family will usually make the whole family regarded as rotten.

The Iranian goverment has a revolutionary guard ,like the old communist youth movements this organization is a stepping stone for people wanting to make a carreer in the country ,and only people from example family's are allowed in.Such society's stand far from democracy and IMO thats a bad thing ,democracy is a good evolution even if many religious thinkers would rather have religious goverments.

That said ,many Irani's want a more democratic goverment.though it must be said that the newest Ayatollah's have been relative moderate (especiallly in comparison to khomeini) politician's who have made room for a small number of reform's ,i doubt those Irani that want a democratic goverment will ever get it withought revolution.And it's not that iran is that stabel politicly ,the revolutionary guard has had it use multiple times to put down a revolt here and there.

In this sense the religious goverment in Iran can be a prime example to show to other middle east nations how religious goverments don't work really good neither ,many muslim's in the middle east want a religious goverment above their current one and should the religious goverment in Iran fail and be toppled by a people's movement then a lot of people in the middle east might get their doubts of the achieveabilety of a religious goverment.

I dare to predict that the religious goverment of Iran will fall within a period of ten years ,i think many Irani's are quite fed up with their ayatollah's.

[miles teg 1]

In Iran they do have a democracy of sorts...or at least they did...until the ayatollahs barred the more liberal political candidates from running for public office.   They saw them as a threat to their brand of Islamic society.  I will say however that their interpretations of Shariat law is very very poor.  One of the big differences between Sunnis and Shi'ites is that Ayatollah's can come up with new Islamic laws and Shi'ites are supposed to obey them, even if those laws are not mentioned in the Qu'ran or if they are based on some kind of weak connection.   Before it was the Calipha and an elected Islamic council that would decide on new interpretations.  But since there is no longer any Calipha or Islamic council representing the world-wide Islamic population, the Ayatollahs do their own things often based more upon their own political agendas.  

I would never regard the Ayatollah Komeinei as a holy man....anyone who forces religion or one form of religious interpretation upon others is not a Saint or some holy man. Maybe he was a good person...hell even the way people describe Osama Bin Laden, he seems like a pretty good family man... he just has a nasty and highly violent disposition/belief system towards Westerners, in particular Americans.

I see Islam as a beautiful religion but that unfortunately was horribly marred by violence right at the onset of the religion after the death of the prophet Mohammed.  However with that said, there have been times in history where Islam really found its place and flourished and encouraged the arts, science, and philosophy.  But those days are long gone and now it has evolved into something to use for nationalistic and political goals.  

As for the Iranian revolution...yes it was bloody, (most revolutions are bloody) however so was the US supported dictatorship led by the Shah of Iran.  The Shah did many good things for Iran but he also was a ruthless tyrant.

Sadly however the terror tactics used by the Shah to suppress Muslims are now being used again by the so called "Islamic government" currently in Iran.  

Iranians only succeeded in replacing one tyrannical government with another.   Steps were recently taken in their last election to throw out opposition political candidates to try and stem the will of the Iranian people to liberalize their country and move it away from Islamic fundamentalism with more freedoms to decide what you want to believe in and what lifestyle you want to live.

Now it is to a point where even age-old Zoastrian traditions and holidays are being banned in Iran....something that is deeply ingrained in their culture.   So in a way they are becoming "talibanized" as pressure mounts on the Islamic clerics who hold the true power in Iran.

I think that eventually they will have another revolution and that they should be left alone or assisted when they are ready to revolt... and then afterwards allow them to run their own affairs without American interference (to avoid giving militants a new excuse for Jihad against the US), but with encouragement and financial assistance for a new government to get on their feet or for reconstruction.  

But Iran holds alot of potential.  They have a rich culture, history, and a fairly good education system along with a well developed industrial sector and plenty of oil.  

However a more important country to keep an eye on is Turkey.   They are currently experimenting with a hybrid secular/Islamic government while their nation's military is poised to take it down at the first sign of fundamentalism taking root.   This model is similar I think to what the US hoped to develop in Iraq, but what the Bush administration is just beginning to realize is that the secularists in Iraq were the Baath party who we threw out and thus it will be very difficult to develop a model of government based upon the Turkish model...especially since Southern Iraq is a center for the Shi'ite sect of Islam.  

As in most countries, Iraq will have to develop its own forum of government probably through a lot of trial and error... that is of coarse if they don't split up in civil war or we don't end up just nuking the whole place.  

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Scorpio 0]

Miles hit the nailpoint. Very well said.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]I think that eventually they will have another revolution and that they should be left alone or assisted when they are ready to revolt... and then afterwards allow them to run their own affairs without American interference (to avoid giving militants a new excuse for Jihad against the US), but with encouragement and financial assistance for a new government to get on their feet or for reconstruction.

I agree here ,i would prefer an iranian revolution by Iranians above regime change with force like In Iraq wich often does more dammage than does good.It's best that tyranic country's can evolve into democracies rather than be forced into democracy ,as their democracy will be more stable from won evlution then.

Quote[/b] ]However a more important country to keep an eye on is Turkey. They are currently experimenting with a hybrid secular/Islamic government while their nation's military is poised to take it down at the first sign of fundamentalism taking root.

Turkey to me is a strong symbol for the Western world to the muslim world ,and vice versa.They can be a key link for peace between the West and the middle east.

Observe the current goverment of Turkey ,actually a religious party it's leadership however already achieved some great results in getting closer to the European Union ,even when it come's to issue's like Cyprus.As thing's are evolving in Turkey

the chance is great that Turkey will join the E.U soon.

I really like the fact that Turkey has a very efficiant and democratic goverment with minister's of a religious party ,it shows that in certain moderate forms Islam can be compatible with a non secularized democracy.

[miles teg 1]

I should also note that Turkey has some fantastic Islamic scholars coming from that country such as Fetullah Gulen:

http://fgulen.com/index.htm

I met last December an Imam taught under Gulen and it was a really inspirational experience. They are very big on peace and tolerance and really concentrate on the inner Jihad (the big Jihad which is the struggle of the soul) rather then trying to get all embroiled in politics. They are basically Sufi, however sadly there's alot of Muslims who call themselves Sufis who give Sufism a bad name. These are those who don't practice the central tenants of Islam. So usually when you ask many Shi'ites and Sunnis about Sufis they'll say, "Oh those guys are crazy, they practice magic." or "they do alot of drugs and don't pray 5 times a day", or the oppossite which is "Oh they think they're better then other Muslims because they pray more".

But Sufis or at least most Turkish Sufis are basically Sunni Muslims who concentrate more on the essence of their religion but who still practice the central tenants of their faith. They simply look deeper into the philosophy of Islam and how to apply Islamic beliefs in practical ways in every day life in order to basically become a better human being.

Basically they are no different then good Christians or good Jews, Hindus, or Buddhists who really try to practice what they preach and to help humanity.

It is this form of Islam that I hope will catch on as it is highly compatible with Western society while at the same time offering a type of refuge from Western Society as well by providing a means of meditation, community, and a strong moral framework that does not go into extremes or put all the emphasis on punishment as fundamentalists like to do.

I can honestly say that being around good Sufi Muslims has made me grow as a person and become a better person.

I can say the same for being around good Christians, although with Christians I tend to get into too many debates about Jesus which I don't like to do because I love most of the teachings of Jesus, but I just don't believe he's the son of God or is God. But other then that I really love Christian teachings and I pretty much find the same teachings in the Sufi interpretations of Islam.

Sadly however there aren't enough of them in the world, and alot of the Islamic teachings I find are based around stories from the Qu'ran or Hadiths, where the Imam treats the students like a bunch of children and uses extremely simplistic interpretations of the Qu'ran and Hadiths while usually throwing in a few comments against Jews and Christians or some political comments here and there. When I question them they say, "Oh you are not Muslim, so you don't understand" and when I show them verses to counter what they are saying they simply say that my interpretations are not based on scholarly interpretations and when I show them scholarly interpretations they say, "Oh that guy didn't know what he was talking about and was mixing philosophy with Islam which you shouldn't do."

It's very sad, but I have hope.

What I really would like to see is the US government establishing within its intelligence and military community schools of Islamic learning based upon highly reputable scholars and taught by Imams with years of experience fighting militant fundamentalism in their own countries.

But of coarse to be truly effective, the US needs to also take a tougher stance against Israel and at least set some limits on how far the US will support Israel rather then just giving them a blank check and a seemingly limitless supply of weapons for them to do whatever they want to do.

I support the existance of Israel but I also support putting pressure (real pressure) to stop Israel doing stupid crap and to take sensible steps to ending their conflict with the Palistinians while still ensuring their security.

Sadly American foreign policy is ruled by Christian beliefs that to go against the Nation of Israel is to go against God and the belief that Armeggeddon is rapidly approaching and that America must quickly take sides so that Americans... or at least Christian Americans, will go up to heaven on Judgement Day when Jesus returns. Muslims have the same apocalyptic belief of Judgement Day that's rather similar. I imagine that some of the militants have the same goal as fundamentalist Christians which is to draw the lines in the sand and begin to hasten the arrival of Judgement Day as they feel they part of divine will and that divine will leads their militant leaders (like Osama Bin Laden). However I am not sure how widespread such a belief is amongst militant Muslims. It may not be as emphasized as much as martyrdom is in which case it doesn't matter when Judgement Day is because they will be guaranteed paradise.

That's why these suicide bombing operations in Iraq are popular amongst militants there (or at least the foreign Jihadis). To them they are fullfilling their duty as Muslims and dying glorious and holy deaths so its a win win situation for them. That's something else Americans don't understand about militant Muslims.

This "cult of the martyr" as I call it is deeply ingrained in Palistinian. This cult or culture is spreading to Iraq and amongst many Islamic communities all over the world where now martyrs who died by blowing themselves up or fighting non-Muslims in battle are looked at as super heroes.

The media calls this cult "Al-Qaeda" and as the head of French intelligence has rightly analyzed, it has become a rapidly spreading ideology that America's foreign policies are feeding into.

But its much more the Al-Qaeda... its a simple belief that terrorism against non-Muslims (or Muslims that stand in the way of these militant Islamic ideaologies) are guaranteed means of getting into paradise when they die.

It is also fed by a belief that they are in a struggle for the survival of Islam fed by conspiracy theories and ignorance of Americans. Some of these militants sincerely believe that America is on a crusade against Islam. So its just common sense that they are willing to attack America and Americans (and our allies) anywhere in the world. Still there are other militants that mix economic ideology and Marxism into their beliefs and are fighting as more of a stance against globalization and homogenization and control by American and multi-national corporations who they see as being controlled by Jews and Israel and that is trying to dominate them.

All of these ideologies and beliefs are tangible belief systems that can be studied, understood, and changed or undermined through a vast range of non-violent means such as through effective marketing of Islamic based ideologies of peace and tolerance via the internet, radio, TV, and print and backed up by good references and interpretations with messages compatible with all the sects of Islam.

There is nothing stopping the US from getting serious about combatting these ideologies because violence only reinforces them and causes them to spread.

Hopefully eventually we'll get some smart politicians in Washington or in the State Department who will figure this out and start implementing forward looking programs to end this "war on terror".

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Miles tag, I would have loved to read your post and to reply to it tonight, but we are playing at the moment. Very interesting though and worth a long reply too. Tomorow!

[Apollo 0]

I wish to add something to Miles teq's idea's.That is that i am of te oppinion that Pan arabism is also one of the factor's to take into the equation or atleast something derived from it ,call it religious nationalism.I have always had the sentiment that there is a solidarity among Muslim's that can not solely be traced back to the teaching's of islam only ,rather to a sort of idioligy where religion is more inportant than ethnicity or culture thus nationalism is rather linked to religion than ethnicity.Sure ,the muslim world is split up in an x amount of country's that theoreticly would represent the living area of a certain ethnicity or cuture. (though many times the borders of Muslim country's have been drawn very badly ,atleast from the point of view of the local leaders) And many Non Turkish muslim's rather hate turk's for ex. .On the other hand ,Muslim's from the whole Muslim world joined the Mujahedeen movement when the Afhani where fighting russia ,and similar thing's can be seen in other conflict's ,like the many foreign fighters now opperating in Iraq against the American occupier and it's unstable puppet regime or the fact that all the Muslim country's around israel.

Let me compare it to the Crusade's.It was a movement that was for a large part created due to wordly affairs rather than pure religious ideoligy.The Muslim's were regared as heathen's long before the crusade's began ,but the crusade's only really started when certain christian lands like the Spanish country's or the Byzantine empire became under pressure of Muslim expansion.One could see that merely as an reaction to protect nationality's of a same religious ,but in my oppinion there is more.This is because of the position of the pope ,he's motives for the expansion of his religion were as much wordly as religiously ,simply because expansion of the religion was also expansion of his influence.As the leader of the christian church in that time the pope had other motives to conflict than feudal nobles had.The feudal christian nobles most of the time were fighting eachother while he wanted to ally them against any other religion.The pope also had considerably more prestige in that time ,the pope was symbolicly regarded as the king of king's in a feudal structure. (thus with not very loyal liege's)

Something that stemmed from the Crowning of Emperor Karel the great.As thus ,while the Christian king's didn't technicly payed tribute to the church ,the pope had the room to call up his "vassals" against other religion's. (or excommunicate an all to disloyal "vassals")

What i mean by this is that like in the time of the christian crusade's Where religion was more determinal than ethnicity and the pope was more like the uncrowned emperor of a highly decentralized christian world ,today the leaders of the Muslim world achieve wordly power as religion is often more determinal than ethnicity as thus creating a wordly powerbase for those religious leaders that is theologicly outside the scope of their religion ,and as such those religious leaders often act more in the interrest of their religious nationalism and the expansion of their influence rather than the theological refinement of their religion.

In a way many region's of the middle east still have a lot left of that medieval Christian feudalism that about doesn't exist anymore in the Western world.Even into the begining of the 20th century the Muslim world was politicly very feudal and there was few nationalism ,even today there are still a lot of clan bases society's in the middle east.Somalia and Afhanistan are obvious example's but there are many more.It's not hard to understand that in iraq hereditry and religion is more important than nationality if you analyse it's social structure.

IMO ,if you want to gain power and influence in the Middle east ,then the religious career can bring you much further than a pure political career.And i am also of the oppinion that in the mind of Osama Bin Laden and many more Islam religious leaders

worldly expansion of influence is more important than actual religious refinement.Religion is the prime tool to power in the middle East ,And a person like osama Bin Laden uses that tool about simelary like the pope used religion to to let the christians fight the Muslim's in the crusade.He proliferate's his war as a religious one for the whole muslim world against the "Heathen" religions ,and because OBL is an clear populist and a smart strategic thinker (i might get flamed for calling OBL a smart strategist ,sorry if i hurt anyone with such a coment) ,his message is easy to accept for a coman muslim ,a war between 2 muslim country's would be far less excepted by the coman muslim. (i'm excluding intelectual's here ,but quite frankly every society has a quite large marginalized group wich can be influenced by populism quite easily)

However in reality it does work.Terrorists around the world are united to create religious goverments in the country's of their origin or even liking.When North African's from for ex. Marrocan origin execute terrorist attacks in a country like Spain under the allied banner of Al-Quaida then there are asside from religious motives also possibly a worldly territorial motive to the act.Spain has had it's history of Muslim occupation ,mostly rulers of Marrocan or berber origin.The official incentive for the attack would be the stationing of Spannish troops in Iraq ,however Al Quaida has yet to attack the U.K ,poland ,Italy ,...

If the middle east as entity could be united like the E.U in a larger whole ,than it would rather happen trough religion than culture.How can i convince other people that OBL is trying to construct a Muslim Union? Al Quaida means the ring ,it is symbolicly that what unites the terrorists movements ,an alliance framework rather than a actual localized movement.Almost all muslim terrorist organization's opperate locally and have the goal of creating a religious goverment in the country of their origin or in the case of Palestinian groups fight the Israeli in a purely local conflict ,Al Quaida is an unicum compared to the other muslim terrorist organization's as it doesn't has a local base or specific local agenda ,it opperates as the representative of the united muslim terrorist organization's against multiple country's abroad ,uses manpower from multiple country's or various organization's as it sees it's power base as the whole Muslim world.

IMO Osama bin laden is much concerned with his prestige as it is very important for his political agenda.I can bet you that Osama bin laden is a very popular man in the Middle east ,in many country's way more popular than any of the local politicians.

IMO that is the greatest danger with Osama bin laden ,that he will become so popular that installing religious puppet regime's in Muslim country's will be a peace of cake for him.

Sorry for the long and quite speculative post ,but i had to set that idea of my mind.

[Scorpio 0]

Sadly however there aren't enough of them in the world, and alot of the Islamic teachings I find are based around stories from the Qu'ran or Hadiths, where the Imam treats the students like a bunch of children and uses extremely simplistic interpretations of the Qu'ran and Hadiths while usually throwing in a few comments against Jews and Christians or some political comments here and there.  When I question them they say, "Oh you are not Muslim, so you don't understand" and when I show them verses to counter what they are saying they simply say that my interpretations are not based on scholarly interpretations and when I show them scholarly interpretations they say, "Oh that guy didn't know what he was talking about and was mixing philosophy with Islam which you shouldn't do."

Heh, I know the feeling. Sadly, there are very few good scholars left. Most of the scholars these days twist and mislead wherever they can...and they can do this whenever they want, to just by wearing a turban and a cloak. Every weak mind will be gullable enough to believe them. Just the other day I saw one Sunni scholar on TV that permitted the use of cannabis...he said that "it helps you get into a frame of mind for prayers"! Whereas he must know well that anything that harms the body is not not allowed.

Personally, I don't really follow any specific sect. I don't really know much about Sufism, but the way you Miles described it, it was very beautiful and effective.

However I do know that it's not just Sufism that has been spoiled in it's image. Theres many many more sects that have been attacked upon their beliefs....the Shi'a sect was originally the one sect that followed exactly how the Qur'an told them to conduct themselves.

If I look back to my history lesson, I learnt that all sects believe in these historic events:

We know that Abu Sufyan was at the time the leader of Arabs against the Muslims. When Abu Sufyan was defeated and Mecca was taken by the muslims, he died soon after and his son Ma'awiya took his place. This guy was very friggin bad.

He first of all plotted his way to power and when he did, he falsely declared himself a muslim and started to persecute the Ahlul-Bayt. The Ahlul-Bayt were the 12 Imams that Mohammed appointed as the leaders of the people after him.

Ma'awiya and his gang, they saw this as an easy twister. They changed it and said that there are only 4. I won't go into the particular names to bore you, but when you think about it, you get 2 strong factors that prove them wrong:

One, is that we all agree that Mohammed said that there are 12, and Two is that the number 12 pops up...the tribes of Israel were 12, the disciples of Jesus were 12, the Imams of Ahlul-Bayt were 12.

The Sunni scholars though, most of them say that at the time Prophet Mohammed was ill and having hallucinations. Which is impossible, because in the Qur'an it says that the Prophets and Imams are 'Mensoon', meaning that they do not commit any sins or mistakes, because they are representing God.

Judge for yourself.

Anyway, while and after Ma'awiya had 'dealt' with the Imams, he went on to form...the Arab Empire.

One of the things that pisses me off these days is that most historians say there was an 'Islamic' Empire...there never was really. It was the Arabs. They used Islam as a tool. And still they do the same thing and even worse in terror attacks, e.g.OBL.

Later on he formed his own sect which eventually mixed with the scholars down south, i.e. the Wahabis,  to form the Sunni sect.

I'm not attacking Sunnism; I'm just outlining where you get this stupidity these days.

So to come back to the Shi'a thing...whilsts all this, Ma'awiya's main intention was to destroy the knowledge of the true way. And he more or less succeeded. The modern day Shi'a religion is very misinterprated and twisted round...for example, the ones in Lebanon cutting their heads, ect.

And so are all the others, including Sufism. It's very hard these days to pursue the truth and actually get to it.

There's a lot more history behind this but I won't bore you too much.

Anyway, to come back to modern day, the connection with the West if vital, as you said, Miles. The problem is though, the people in the middle east are stuck to their culture so much that they hate the West. If they followed the muslims' example in the west, in that they adapt to that country's culture, but still follow their religion, they would have much more chances of establishing a friendly bond with the western countries.

To come to the Israel-Palestine situation, yeah, the American government is so stuck to their beliefs that they'd help Israel as much as possible. There's really no point to try and turn them away and set limits; they'll never listen.

One big mess.

To add to the Judgement Day apocolyptic thing...yep, Muslims believe that the last Imam, Imam Mehdi, is among us but does not show himself because of the same persecution he will get as the other Imams. They believe that he is waiting for the right time, and he will come with Jesus to set things straight.

This threads turning out to be very interesting. Keep it up, guys.

[miles teg 1]

Sadly I don't think the "Mehdi" would last very long before Muslims would kill him.  Too many of the violent ones would rise up and try to assassinate him.  However I've heard some Muslims refer to Osama Bin Laden as the "Mehdi".   (Ouch).

They believe Osama will unite the Islamic Uma against the non-believers.  

I also do not prescribe to the idea that prophets are "perfect human beings".   I've yet to ever meet any perfect human.... plus what exactly is the definition of "perfect"?  

I don't recall the prophet Mohammed as saying that he was perfect in any verse from the Qu'ran or in any Hadith I have read.   I think it is his followers and later Muslims who believed that only a perfect man could be so divinely inspired.    But I was not alive at that time so I can not know.  

At any rate back to the "Mehdi".  You should read Frank Herbert's "Dune" series of books.   They use the term "Muad'dib" to describe a character in the books who becomes a leader of a great religious empire set in the future. This is in fullfillment of a prophecy...it is very similar (and probably taken from) the Islamic prophecy about the "Mehdi" who is supposed to come again to unite the Islamic Uma.

The parrallels between the Dune series and modern times is absolutely fascinating.   I especially recommed "Heretics of Dune" the book from which I get the name "Miles Teg" who is another character.   If you read it you will also understand where I get alot of my ideas of the importance of understanding religion and then guiding it to avoid violence and conflict.   This in the Dune series is called the "missionaria protectiva" led by the Bene Gesserit, an order of women (similar to nuns) who's mission is to guide religions and when needed, to subvert religion by prophecy fullfillment...but it also shows the dangers of tampering with these things (which is what happened when they created the Maud'dib).   Yet they could not deny that something unpredictable happened and things worked out in a way they could not imagine.

In the end of "Heretics of Dune" the head of the Bene Gesserit order is reminded of her call to humanity and of the importance of "Noble Purpose".  

I see this as being the case today.  Religions forget their essence.... their essentials...their noble purpose... and instead get embroiled into politics and twised for all kinds of purposes for which they were never intended for.  

The really ironic thing is that in all my studies of psychology, sociology, theology, and anthropology I have never come across anything remotely resembling what Frank Herbert in his "Dune" series of books describes...

But the more I look at the world, the clearer it becomes to me that this world needs an organization similar to the Bene Gesserit who are focused on the understanding of all religions and cultures and on guiding religious forces into forms that are not destructive to mankind but that rather help mankind evolve...

something that would not be easy and would require incredibly delicate diplomatic skills and extreme caution to avoid making religious conflicts worse or to avoid something new and dangerous being created.  But for certain, limited actions can be taken to undermine Islamic militancy without undermining Islam.   This must however go hand in hand with changes in American foreign policy or else it would useless.

 

That is why currently I'm trying to get Sufis interested in basically doing missionary work, but unfortunately most are not interested in doing this because they don't want to get involved in politics and they don't want to get killed...   so I gotta convince them that they'll die martyrs if they get killed.    

Nah seriously I'm trying to develop methods of marketing in dangerous areas by proxy (so as to avoid getting killed) to counter the militant Islamic ideaologies in an effective manner.   But I simply lack the resources which is why I hope some individual in the US government or the head of some State Department agancy grasps what I'm saying and sees the need for this.  

I think alot of very serious and productive research and action could be taken in this area starting with "test" areas of the Middle East in order to see if such actions are viable and effective on a small scale before trying expensive large scale programs.  

Such programs would also have to be highly flexible and be able to adapt and counter any new issues that pop up such as counter-propaganda and pitfalls (such as conspiracy theories of such an organization being the new Illuminati, avoiding local political issues that could undermine the programs, ect...).   It also would require some form of checks and balances by other organizations to insure that such an organization was not used for political purposes or for the goal of spreading any one religious ideology.  

A Buddhist would probably be best suited to run such a program.      

All organized religions face a common problem, a tender spot through which we may enter and shift them to our designs: How do they distinguish hubris from revelation?

-Missionaria Protectiva, the Inner Teachings (Heretics of Dune)

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Then, in the original text of the Genesis, man (adam) has been created to look after the earth (adamah). adam is the masculine version of adamah. What does this mean, what does this imply ? Nothing more than man comes from the earth, and nothing less than literal interpretations of the Bible are preposterous : translating is betraying, and I am not even mentioning the obstacles of a 4000-year-old language.

It is very interesting to me that the literal interpretation of the bible only fell out of favour when it was proved (in the common use of the word) utter nonsense. When people figured out that the world just could not be 6000 years old, suddenly there was a huge rush to claim 'the bible is not literal.' Well,

1) Yes it is. The whole book is written as a literal account of events- the way the authors thought things happened. The fact that these authors were totally wrong doesn't change the way they wrote it.

2) if it isn't true, then the religions based on it are worthless. The only value of the book is the same as any other book of nursery stories and myths; Aesops fables, etc- they are quite useful as stories.... but thats all, really.

Quote[/b] ]

At this point, I should add that literal Protestants seem to me to be one specificity of American Christianity. I am not judging, I am not explaining anything either, I am only stating. In France, there are virtually none, and I am very tempted to say that there aren't too many in Europe.

...because the literal interpretation of the bible - the original interpretation - is obviously ....bullshit, not to put too fine a point on it. Hence the get out clause of 'its not really literal'

Quote[/b] ]

I really do not want to linger on the necessity not to read the Bible literally.

Pity, because that IS how it was written. Nowadays we can see it is nonsense. For most people that might serve to show them that the book is nonsense, but some like to twist reality to retain their beliefs.

Quote[/b] ]

The second idea is that of the original sin. The Genesis, and many other parts of the Bible are to be read metaphorically. How else to explain that Jesus, God's son, used parabols to make intricate, subtle truths, clear to us ?

Parables. And? So?

How else to explain the contradictory qualities of the bible?

it was written by semi-literate goat herders several thousand years ago and expanded, edited, chopped about and 're-interpreted' about 1600 years ago.

Quote[/b] ]

Another crucial point is the relationship to sciences. Here I will freely quote one of the most influential theologians today, Christof Theobald : "God will not reveal to us what we can find out by ourselves."

Handy little cop-out, isn't it. That still doesn't resolve the issues of religion interfering in science, stifling human intelligence, stating that reality is other than it is (any sermon featuring miracles, as already said,) etc.

Quote[/b] ]

I will go on, and deal with the accusations made against the Christians in general, and the Catholics in particular.

Christians and Catholics have made mistakes throughout history, this is undeniable, but they are also the only ones to truly repent for this, and ask for forgiveness.

'Hey god, I killed a bunch of women and children... but I'm sorry' - 'Ok then, off you go to heaven.' 'Hi god, I believed that you were called allah because I was brought up in a muslim country' ' GO TO HELL!'

Quote[/b] ]

At any rate, whether this was because of their religion only is way less defendable. Take the Crusades : it has been argued that they were organized out of spite and envy towards the wealth of the East, and to give something to do to the numerous soldiers and mercenaries that roamed the roads of Europe after the end of the feudal wars between the lords for kingdom.

Many things have been argued. That doesn't make them the truth.

Quote[/b] ]

As to the Spanish Inquisition, it remained local to specific geographical and historical coordinates, and can not be at any rate extended to the Church in general : that would be taking the exception for the rule.

Apart from the complete support of the church for these event, the encouragement, the praise....

Quote[/b] ]

Galileo ? Historical reality is often more complicated than what the lay man would like it to be. Everything would be so much simpler if everything were black or white ! I am afraid it all comes in shades of grey. I will just mention Bellarmin's warnings to Galileo to add hedges to his book, and make his thesis appear more like an assumption than an assertion. Anyway, Galileo won, and there is not a single Catholic today that doubts that the earth revolves around the sun (or is it the other way round ? )

Conveniently you sidestep the entire issue, namely the persecution of Galileo for hundreds of years and the total refusal of the catholic church to accept the fact (until sometime this century)

Quote[/b] ]

Hitler, the Jews : what is the story again about Hitler being a Roman Catholic ? The link you gave, Baron, does not work.

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance

with the will of the Almighty Creator."

[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 46]

"What we have to fight for...is the freedom and independence

of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill

the mission assigned to it by the Creator."

[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 125]

"It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but

the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god."

[Adolph Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]

In the 1920s, Hitler's German Workers' Party (pre Nazi term) adopted a "Programme" with twenty-five points (the Nazi version of a constitution). In point twenty-four, their intent clearly demonstrates, from the very beginning, their stand in favor of a "positive" Christianity:

24. We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession....

It will at any rate be my supreme task to see to it that in the newly awakened NSDAP, the adherents of both Confessions can live peacefully together side by side in order that they may take their stand in the common fight against the power which is the mortal foe of any true Christianity.

-Adolf Hitler, in an article headed "A New Beginning," 26 Feb. 1925

Etc. You get the idea.

Quote[/b] ]

Back then, there was Mit Brennender Sorge, too. The behaviour of the Catholic Church in WWII is explainable by the fact that the Pope was shit-scared that German Catholics might also be persecuted.

Re-read what you just said. Gods chosen representative on earth was scared. Right. I suppose all those moral messages in the bible must have helped him come to the 'right decision,' eh. Lucky he was such a religious man, or he might have actually had some human decency.

Quote[/b] ]

Condoms : the Catholic Church's message aims at being both universal and intemporal. To make an exception for Africa would cause the Church to CTD. Why anyway should the Catholic Africans not (try to !) refrain from having sex any more than their counterparts from other parts of the world ?

Once again, the church refuses to let human decency, or things that would reduce human suffering, interfere with their religion.

Quote[/b] ]

]To me, there is some truth in this, but I also agree with Major Fubar :

I firmly that believe that in a theortical world where the concept of religion was never invented, most people who are religious zealots or commit violence in the name of religion in our world would still be the same in this theortical world, just their energy and beliefs would be diverted to something else (i.e. state, country, personal power etc.).

Still waiting on a reason for that.

Quote[/b] ]

Abolishing religions would not solve the problem,

Nobody said anything about abolishing religions. Please read the thread.

Educating people so they think for themselves, yes.

Quote[/b] ]

Please do not come up to me by saying that the use of "reason" can keep us away from that : first, because nobody is always rational, then because man is more (or less, it is all up to you) than reason only, then because it is too often deemed rational to cultivate strength to crush one's enemy, last because two or more solutions to a given problem can be rational.

Reason, empathy and compassion can prevent that. Deal with it. Religion is not the source nor the deciding factor of empathy or compassion. It is never rational to cause needless suffering, no matter how people redefine words to suit themselves.

Quote[/b] ]

Scientists and self-appointed free-thinkers today always carefully overlook ontological and eschatological issues, that is to say they fail, most of the time willingly, to ask themselves the following simple questions (the formulating of which, and attempts at answering of which, were the starting point of philosophy and sciences in the Western tradition) : where do I come from ? Where do I go ? What am I ? Who am I ?

Liar. The questions are always asked. Some of us, however, are HONEST enough to say 'we don't know yet' as the answer. Which is, of course, far better than making stuff up.

Africa; bipedal apes who became intelligent.

Wherever I can, physically and mentally.

A bipedal ape with a relatively large brain.

An emergent property of such a large brain with so many interconnections.

Quote[/b] ]

As to fanatics of all kinds, be they Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Hindus, Muslims, atheists, well, we can spot them

from far away. They want to change you. They often want to kill you. Unfortunately, there is no debate with them, for they do not negotiate. How to treat them, I leave the question open to you .

Name an atheist fanatic. That is, one whose athiesm drives them to fanaticism, not whose thirst for power.

Quote[/b] ]

My main point here is to show things are way more complicated than what demagogues or ignorants would like them to be. Only open-mindedness and moderation can claim to take us all closer to the truth.

It is a complete fallacy to always assume that a stance halfway between two points is always closer to the truth. On religion, there is either a supernatural being presiding over the universe or there is not. There is no half way. This was also dealt with earlier, which you appear to have ignored.

Quote[/b] ]

What good is there to pray ? What good is there to bring solace to a poor child in India ? This is not quantifiable. One might want to burn down all religious buildings, one might want to make useful things only. Define useful. Anyway, I think it is a lesser evil to pray.

One might want to stop wasting time building churches and build hospitals instead. One might want to use the time spent talking to invisible fairies to help others.

One might want to stop dangerous delusions (that one is immune to snake venom, that 'laying on hands' can heal people)

Praying is the greater evil.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

You seriously don't think there are people out there who's moral system is primarily based on their religious beliefs ? ? ?

Or do you think all of these people would be moral anyway?

You seriously think that some people have no empathy or compassion until they were told whatever religion they follow? ? ?

Humans have morality by default. We are social animals. Without something that brutalises and removes their empathy(usally religion), people are basically good.

[Major Fubar 0]

You seriously think that some people have no empathy or compassion until they were told whatever religion they follow? ? ?

Well, yes...not all, probably not a majority...but certainly some. And not to an extreme of no morality whatsoever - more a moral guide.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

You seriously think that some people have no empathy or compassion until they were told whatever religion they follow? ? ?

Well, yes...not all, probably not a majority...but certainly some. And not to an extreme of no morality whatsoever - more a moral guide.

Do you think these people were born like that or have they become like that due to abuse, environment, etc?

[denoir 0]

Baron, if people believe that some invisible undetectable being is controling their lives why is it so hard to believe that people are motivated to do what their religion says is right? If we take Christianity for example, the new testament is pure hippie ideology. It talks about being nice to everybody, not be vengeful, forgiveness etc

Why is it so hard to believe that peopel actually follow that?

Furthermore who says that it is bad to do the right thing for the wrong reasons? I mean practically in my life it is more important that my fellow human beings are nice to me and each other than that they believe that the earth is round. Who cares about their motivation as long as the effects are good?

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Baron, if people believe that some invisible undetectable being is controling their lives why is it so hard to believe that people are motivated to do what their religion says is right? If we take Christianity for example, the new testament is pure hippie ideology. It talks about being nice to everybody, not be vengeful, forgiveness etc

That is not the only interpretation of it....

Quote[/b] ]

Why is it so hard to believe that peopel actually follow that?

I am NOT saying that people don't follow it. I'm saying that they do not lack morals or empathy without it. I am saying that it is not the only source of morality or even the main one.

Quote[/b] ]

Furthermore who says that it is bad to do the right thing for the wrong reasons? I mean practically in my life it is more important that my fellow human beings are nice to me and each other than that they believe that the earth is round. Who cares about their motivation as long as the effects are good?

It isn't bad to do the right thing for the wrong reasons... the problem is when they do the WRONG thing for the wrong reasons.

[denoir 0]

That is not the only interpretation of it....

Agreed, but a large portion of the world's Christians interpret it that way.

Quote[/b] ]I am NOT saying that people don't follow it. I'm saying that they do not lack morals or empathy without it. I am saying that it is not the only source of morality or even the main one.

There is certainly a motivating factor if you think you will burn in hell if you are not nice to your fellow people.

Quote[/b] ]It isn't bad to do the right thing for the wrong reasons... the problem is when they do the WRONG thing for the wrong reasons.

Absolutely, but again, you're focusing on the extremists and fundamentalists.

The overall point being that religion does not exclusively produce negative effects.

[toadlife 3]

Humans have morality by default. We are social animals. Without something that brutalises and removes their empathy(usally religion), people are basically good.

Humans, like all amimals have only two things "built in". The desire to stay alive and the desire to reproduce. I think you'll find that humans will do a lot of nasty things to achive those afformantioned goals. In order to achive the primary goal of survival, humans must be social. I would define being social as neccesity rather than morality.

Morality is such an abstract concept anyway, that I can't beleive you all of people would state that it is built into humans.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]

Hitler, the Jews : what is the story again about Hitler being a Roman Catholic ? The link you gave, Baron, does not work.

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance

with the will of the Almighty Creator."

   [Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 46]

"What we have to fight for...is the freedom and independence

of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill

the mission assigned to it by the Creator."

        [Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 125]

"It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but

the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god."

        [Adolph Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]

Careful Baron, enemy teritory. I may remind you that half of our german and history classes deal with the topic of Hitler. Consequently we know what we are talking about. Nice reference to chapter 2.  The only time when Hitler brings into play the idea of religion in an analytical way is in chapter one.

Es ist eine sehr schöne, meist aber auch billige Erklärung, wenn man das Wesen eines Menschen als "tiefinnerlich religiös" bezeichnet. Es wird vielleicht auch einige wenige geben, die durch eine solche ganz allgemeine Bezeichnung sich selbst beschrieben fühlen, ja denen sie sogar ein bestimmtes, mehr oder minder scharfes Bild jenes Seelenzustandes zu vermitteln vermag. Da aber die große Masse weder aus Philosophen noch aus Heiligen besteht, wird eine solche ganz allgemeine religiöse Idee dem einzelnen meist nur als Freigabe seines individuellen Denkens und Handelns bedeuten, ohne indes zu jener Wirksamkeit zu führen, welche der religiösen inneren Sehnsucht in dem Augenblick erwächst, da sich aus der rein metaphysischen unbegrenzten Gedankenwelt ein klar umgrenzter Glaube formt. Sicherlich ist dieser nicht der Zweck an sich, sondern nur ein Mittel zum Zweck; doch ist er das unumgänglich notwendige Mittel, um den Zweck überhaupt erreichen zu können. Dieser Zweck aber ist nicht nur ein ideeller, sondern im letzten Grunde genommen auch ein eminent praktischer. Wie man sich überhaupt darüber klar werden muß, daß die höchsten Ideale immer einer tiefsten Lebensnotwendigkeit entsprechen, genau so wie der Adel der erhabensten Schönheit im letzten Grunde auch nur im logisch Zweckmäßigsten liegt.

Indem der Glaube mithilft, den Menschen über das Niveau eines tierischen Dahinlebens zu erheben, trägt er in Wahrheit zur Festigung und Sicherung seiner Existenz bei. Man nehme der heutigen Menschheit die durch ihre Erziehung gestützten religiös- glaubensmäßigen, in ihrer praktischen Bedeutung aber sittlich- moralischen Grundsätze durch Ausscheidung dieser religiösen Erziehung und ohne dieselbe durch Gleichwertiges zu ersetzen, und man wird das Ergebnis in einer schweren Erschütterung der Fundamente ihres Daseins vor sich haben. Man darf also wohl feststellen, daß nicht nur der Mensch lebt, um höheren Idealen zu dienen, sondern daß diese höheren Ideale umgekehrt auch die Voraussetzung zu seinem Dasein als Mensch geben. So schließt sich der Kreis.

Natürlich liegen auch schon in der allgemeinen Bezeichnung "religiös" einzelne grundsätzliche Gedanken oder Überzeugungen, zum Beispiel die der Unzerstörbarkeit der Seele, der Ewigkeit ihres Daseins, der Existenz eines höheren Wesens usw. Allein alle diese Gedanken, und mögen sie für den einzelnen noch so überzeugend sein, unterliegen solange der kritischen Prüfung dieses einzelnen und damit solange einer schwankenden Bejahung oder Verneinung, bis eben nicht die gefühlsmäßige Ahnung oder Erkenntnis die gesetzmäßige Kraft apodiktischen Glaubens annimmt. Dieser vor allem ist der Kampffaktor, der der Anerkennung religiöser Grundanschauungen Bresche schlägt und die Bahn frei macht.

Ohne den klar begrenzten Glauben würde die Religiosität in ihrer unklaren Vielgestaltigkeit für das menschliche Leben nicht nur wertlos sein, sondern wahrscheinlich zur allgemeinen Zerrüttung beitragen. Ähnlich wie mit dem Begriff "religiös" verhält es sich mit der Bezeichnung "völkisch". Auch in ihr liegen schon einzelne grundsätzliche Erkenntnisse. Sie sind jedoch, wenn auch von eminentester Bedeutung, ihrer Form nach so wenig klar bestimmt, daß sie sich über den Wert einer mehr oder minder anzuerkennenden Meinung erst dann erheben, wenn sie als Grundelemente in den Rahmen einer politischen Partei gefaßt werden. Denn die Verwirklichung weltanschauungsmäßiger Ideale und der aus ihnen abgeleiteten Forderungen erfolgt ebensowenig durch das reine Gefühl oder das innere Wollen der Menschen an sich, als etwa die Erringung der Freiheit durch die allgemeine Sehnsucht nach ihr. Nein, erst wenn der ideale Drang nach Unabhängigkeit in den Formen militärischer Machtmittel die kampfesmäßige Organisation erhält, kann der drängende Wunsch eines Volkes in herrliche Wirklichkeit umgesetzt werden.

Jede Weltanschauung, sie mag tausendmal richtig und von höchstem Nutzen für die Menschheit sein, wird solange für die praktische Ausgestaltung eines Völkerlebens ohne Bedeutung bleiben, als ihre Grundsätze nicht zum Panier einer Kampfbewegung geworden sind, die ihrerseits wieder solange Partei sein wird, als sich ihr Wirken nicht im Siege ihrer Ideen vollendet hat, und ihre Parteidogmen die neuen Staatsgrundgesetze der Gemeinschaft eines Volkes bilden.

Unfortunately you dont understand that very well I gues   . But let me put it this way. Whether or whether not Hitler was a relgious man was never proven. one of the most sophisticated professor who approached the issue wasnt willing to give a final conclusion.

However the conclusion to be drawn from what he writes here is clear. Hitler wrote "mein Kampf" not for himself. He wanted people to read it, and being a master of propaganda he wanted to create a train of thought that would attract the sympathy of christian germany.

And this train of thought starts in chapter 1. Here he shows that relgion is worth nothing if not enforced by brutal force. He wanted to twist the image of a peaceloving god into a god of war. Why so? Because of 2 reasons:

a) he wanted to convince people that jesus was killed by jews and wants revenge. Believe shall not be enough, it must be put into action. Being a believer is no compliment. Being a man of action is. (do you see the hidden message?)

b) Even during times of war he wanted to the church not to stand in his way but to cover his back with propaganda. (especially since Belief is bread for soldiers). So he always emphasised his belief and the religious background of his "mission" (just like bush)

Two things are proven: hitler did not believe in the "Thule-orden" (germanic religion). And secondly, there is no real indicator for Hitler being a true believer.

Trust me or not, but dont give me shitty quotes from one or the other US religious source. BTW the jewish community in germany officially shares my point of view.

But you made one of the biggest mistakes about Hitler and your knowledge of his propaganda. You take is word as gospel. Hitler always said what was persuading but not what he believed in. That my friend is called propaganda. In german we have a term for that "empty rethorical bullets" (worthülsen) . And the worst is that I find about 1000 silly US sites which all come forward with your silly quote. Wanna-be science. If you want to come forward with real stuff about him then you should at leas have read the entire book and analysed it properly.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Agreed, but a large portion of the world's Christians interpret it that way.

...But an argument from numbers is a fallacy.

Quote[/b] ]

There is certainly a motivating factor if you think you will burn in hell if you are not nice to your fellow people.

Yes. There is also a motivating factor to proselytize, to treat others badly based on their religion/ life choice stuff, etc etc.

Quote[/b] ]

Absolutely, but again, you're focusing on the extremists and fundamentalists.

Am I? You said yourself earlier that religion interferes with science, that it meddles politically - that is the type of thing I'm talking about.

Quote[/b] ]

The overall point being that religion does not exclusively produce negative effects.

The overall point being that the negative effects NOWADAYS outweigh the positive effects.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Humans, like all amimals have only two things "built in". The desire to stay alive and the desire to reproduce. I think you'll find that humans will do a lot of nasty things to achive those afformantioned goals. In order to achive the primary goal of survival, humans must be social. I would define being social as neccesity rather than morality.

Morality is such an abstract concept anyway, that I can't beleive you all of people would state that it is built into humans.

Humans, like all social animals, have empathy with other members of their race, because, although in some situations it is detrimental, by and large those families which looked after their own and relatives children survived and reproduced sucessfully more often.

Morality comes from intelligence, compassion and empathy. It does not come from religion.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Unfortunately you dont understand that very well I gues . But let me put it this way. Whether or whether not Hitler was a relgious man was never proven. one of the most sophisticated professor who approached the issue wasnt willing to give a final conclusion.

However the conclusion to be drawn from what he writes here is clear. Hitler wrote "mein Kampf" not for himself. He wanted people to read it, and being a master of propaganda he wanted to create a train of thought that would attract the sympathy of christian germany.

And this train of thought starts in chapter 1. Here he shows that relgion is worth nothing if not enforced by brutal force. He wanted to twist the image of a peaceloving god into a god of war. Why so? Because of 2 reasons:

a) he wanted to convince people that jesus was killed by jews and wants revenge. Believe shall not be enough, it must be put into action. Being a believer is no compliment. Being a man of action is. (do you see the hidden message?)

b) Even during times of war he wanted to the church not to stand in his way but to cover his back with propaganda. (especially since Belief is bread for soldiers). So he always emphasised his belief and the religious background of his "mission" (just like bush)

Two things are proven: hitler did not believe in the "Thule-orden" (germanic religion). And secondly, there is no real indicator for Hitler being a true believer.

Trust me or not, but dont give me shitty quotes from one or the other US religious source. BTW the jewish community in germany officially shares my point of view.

But you made one of the biggest mistakes about Hitler and your knowledge of his propaganda. You take is word as gospel. Hitler always said what was persuading but not what he believed in. That my friend is called propaganda. In german we have a term for that "empty rethorical bullets" (worthülsen) . And the worst is that I find about 1000 silly US sites which all come forward with your silly quote. Wanna-be science. If you want to come forward with real stuff about him then you should at leas have read the entire book and analysed it properly.

Just because religious people don't like admitting that hitler was religious, doesn't mean he was not.

Hitler reinterpreted the bible. So what? Every single priest, bishop, iman, Rabbi, and theologian does exactly the same thing when they read it - they form their own interpretation. There is no consistent interpretation - every denomination and even every reader has their own.

Hitler used religion to control people. So what? THAT'S WHAT ITS FOR. Again, its nothing any other religious leader doesn't do.

Hitler didn't share your interpretation of the bible = he wasn't a true believer. So what. Almost noone else in the world shares the same interpretation of the bible as you, as hitler, as the pope, etc.

Your biggest mistake is assuming that hitler wasn't religious because you don't like the idea.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I like your Bush mentallity of arguing:

Just because religious people don't like admitting that hitler was religious, doesn't mean he was not

? I dont reply to that silly kindergarden arguments. I told you that the issue has been researched in the past by several historians. And no conclusion can be drawn. Actually it is more likely that he wasnt. I dont count your voice as competent in this area because

A: you never read "mein Kampf" and consequently cannot judge from a single quote

B: You are taking Hitlers statements as what he believes in

Two limitations that cut your competence down to 0%

Your biggest mistake is assuming that hitler wasn't religious because you don't like the idea.

And I dont need these silly acusations. Dont believe you can bark at me without getting an Echo! Personally, I dont give a shit whether Hitler was religious or not and I give a shit about what you think he believed in!