Probably because Naziism existed for a few decades and was uniformly associated with genocide. Islam has existed for over a millenium and has had intermittent associations with violence, as has Christianity; and both also have had intermittent associations with mostly peaceful socities.
Do you blame culture (and other factors) for the incredible brutality of many past Christian societies, or is it religious ideology?
I see you have joined Robert163 in the false claim that opponents of Islamophobia insist that religion plays no role in the situation.
As long as you insist on a straw man that has no basis in reality, your arguments fail on facts.
ETA: I will also note that Christianity played a role in the actions associated with the Holocaust. It was not the driving force, but it established a view of Jews as Untermenschen that allowed much Nazi propaganda to be accepted by the German people.
The Nazi Party was not Germany’s religion in the 1930’s and 1940’s.
Nazi Germany was a Christian nation.
By the logic expressed in this thread, Christianity is to blame for the Holocaust and the War.
This statement bugs me. It reminds me of things like “oh, democrats and republicans are all the same”. The Koran has some level of easiness-to-use-in-justifying-violence, which comes from the combinations of lots of different parts of the text. The Bible has some level of easiness-to-use-in-justifying-violence, which comes from the combinations of lots of different parts of the text.
What possible reason is there to think that they are equal? You could make a pretty good argument (and people have in this thread) that for both of them, there is both a non-zero collection-of-stuff-that-justifies-violence and a non-zero collection-of-stuff-that-argues-against-violence, but then just saying “ok, well, yup, they’re the same” is just facile and groundless.
I think the really tough hurdle is the next step, where one might argue that there’s a strong and immediate and inevitable correlation between the text of the holy book and the actual behavior of the society, which I think is easily disproven by the number of different societies there have been that profess to follow each religion both at present and throughout history.
Exactly: even if it were 100% proven that the Koran was a violent book and the Bible a peaceful book…would you rather have as a neighbor a bad Christian, who ignores the peaceful verses, or a bad Muslim who ignores the violent verses?
Maybe they’re not exactly the same, though I wouldn’t know how to measure it. But from my reading of both, and from my hearing from critics and defenders of both, they seem pretty close to me… Close enough that anyone who wants to find some dubious justification for a violent act in either can probably find it.
Kind of “road apples” you see at the Kentucky Derby.
Why does that matter, at all? I’m concerned about the way the violence is happening in current events, right now. Why would anyone give 2 shits about something that happened ages ago? In fact, if it helps to lump them all together, I’m good with that.
Religions suck, all of them, they promote violence and they should all be looked at a detrimental.
Even Islam.
in practical terms, you’re absolutely right.
But the premise of the discussion is that Islam is inherently (and indeed uniquely) violent. That would certainly suggest that its entire history is relevant.
And made use of suicide bombers, too.
If that is the discussion, you are certainly correct that the history of both need to be evaluated but the actual OP just calls out the violence inherent in Islam, today.
And there is no question that the majority of violence is happening, today, right now, at the behest of Islam.
:dubious: The figure bandied about earlier was 8,886 deaths attributable to Islamists worldwide in 2011. The U.S. alone had 14,612 murders that year. The majority of violence is assuredly not “at the behest of Islam”.
This is factually incorrect.
The Nazi part of Germany was not christian in any sense. They believed in a pre-christian view of Germans as a race, seperate and unique amongst other peoples. They based their genoicidal actions on what they believed to be the best science of the day (genetics/eugenics). Since Luther there has been a distinct seperation of church and state.
Also, the major opposition to Naziism came from christians like the White Rose Movement.
How bout actually saying something instead of posting some text that addresses nothing that I posted?
Economics and political instability are the so-called reasons for what you posted. Almost no German in 1920 or 1933 supported violence against other Germans.
It addressed exactly what you posted, the false claim that “the Nazi part of Germany was not christian in any sense”. It was very Christian, starting with the long history of Christian antisemitism in Europe.
Of course they did. Germany was rife with violence being done by Germans to other Germans, including a large amount of support for violence being done to German Jews.
The Nazi Party had almost zero links to christianity or any other religion. It was biologically nationalistic which is contrary to anything religion preaches. No leading Nazis were religious. Please post some links to anything Hitler wrote or said that would suggest that Nazi Germany was infkuenced ideologically by christianity.
Further, in Europe Jews could always save themselves by converting. In Germany Judiasm was seen as genetic, not religious. Your genes condemned you and there was no escape.
Your attempt to link christianity to naziism is a fail.
You are correct that there was a lot of political violence in Germany, I should have been clearer. What I meant to say is that virtually no German, nazi or otherwise, would have supported the Holocaust. Please note that it was carried out under the fog of war and outside of Germany,hidden away in the countryside.
BTW…if we wanna take note of a religious figure that was openly pro Nazi take a look at this guy
My understanding is that this has been proven mostly false. Most Germans were aware of the Holocaust – they knew about the camps (some of which were in Germany), for the most part, and they knew that people (Jews and others) were brought in, and executed and/or worked to death. They also were aware of the mass deportation of Jews eastwards, never to be seen again. And, of course, hundreds of thousands of German soldiers and SS personnel (and others) saw firsthand aspects of the Holocaust in action.
In short, it wasn’t particularly hidden to Germans, and Germans at the time were mostly okay with it.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/08/23/list-of-hitler-quotes-he-was-q/
And the only reason the scientific racism of the Nazis was accepted (and the only reason it was so focused on Jews) was because of the centuries of religious antisemitism that pervaded Europe and particularly Germany.
Or do you think that the Nazi obsession with Judaism sprung up ex nihilo in 1933?
Really? So who was it that planned and executed the Holocaust, from the attendees at Wannsee to the KZ personnel and the members of the Einsatzgruppen? Magical fairies?
If you say so.