I believe you did misunderstand my point. It was that his hatred of the Jews was for the reasons you outlined, as a race of people, more than the particular beliefs held by members of the Hebrew faith. The discussion in the OP was the role of religion in Hitler’s actions. I’m saying it was more from fear of the power/financial aspects he attributed to the Jews than to the substance of the theology and practices in the synagogue. Pragmatic concerns of power and wealth more than spiritual ones.
[Zeldar]
Holy cow, you are the first one who has understood the significance of my screenname!!! Congratulations!
First of all, Germany was in as much economic and social trouble as the rest of the world at the time. In almost all capitalist states, this means poor public education. Einstein, von Braun, etc. were pretty much done with school(In Germany at least) before the depression reached it’s worst point.
But that is only part of the problem. I will not tire myself listing the aspects of education as compared to the traits of (For lack of a better term) brainwashing. One needs to see all sides of the issue to make an informed decision, and this is what education does, or at least is supposed to. Brainwashing, on the other hand, either presents one side of the argument, or presents one side of the argument as good, and the other as inhuman or evil.
Hitler’s greatest support was found in the youth of Germany, whom he very systematically taught to think like he wanted them to, through the Hitler Youth groups and controlling schools. (Check out Palmer-Colton’s A History of the Modern World, if you need a nap)
This arguement is not over over Hitler’s religion, really. It is about how Hitler either consciously or unconsiously twisted the religion of the populace to his own ends, and used it to, in part because it was not his only tool, justify the genocide of almost everyone he didn’t like.
You have chosen a good user name for someone concerned about the evil that lurks in the hearts of men.
Have you been surprised at all by the number of United States citizens who support the use of torture and support holding prisoners without giving them POW status or bringing charges against them?
It was just a matter of adding a few vowels, but it was the first thing I saw in your name. Must come from all the puzzles I work these days. And the number of hours in my youth I spent listening to the show.
Somewhere in this discussion it may become advantageous to insert that the current Pope was among the Hitler Youth. Then it might be amusing to take that branch of the argument that might suggest the HY training always led to nefarious results. Just saying. No dog in that hunt for me.
I’d bet a large amount of money (if I had any to spare) that a major country will become a true theocracy within the next 30 years, taking its laws directly from a religion’s holy book. But it won’t be the US, and it won’t be Christian.
Although I haven’t read Mein Kampf, I’d bet everything but the Roosevelt part is in it. And as to whether he really believed it, it’s the simplest and most obvious explanation for his actions. Surely it’s reason enough for his attempt to exterminate the Jews.
The wes in the middle statement cast an interesting light on the rest of your remarks.
Not sure what you mean by “major” country, but I was in Bahrain during the Ashura holiday and was invited to part of the celebration, which included a sermon (called a “lecture”) about why theocracy is the best form of government. The essence of the speech: One-person rule is obviously no good unless the one-person happens to be kind, just, benevolent, etc. Democracy is obviously no good because the minority have no rights. Only God can make laws for everyone that are truly just, so obviously theocracy is the best form of government.
I kept my mouth shut, of course, but there it is. They believe it.
Yes, and long before 1933. Since the dawn of civilization in fact. Remember the Israelites of ancient Egypt?
True
I’ll agree to a limited degree. Paul never advocated taking action against any people who did not conform. The only sense of bigotry I get is for homosexuals who are lumped in with liars and adulterers. No one today would regard a distaste for liars and adulterers as being bigoted.
True
True
Most fundamental Christians would agree. They would say you need to read your bible every day to make safe moral decisions.
I don’t understand the implied need to study other religions whether you are a Christian or not however. Your moral code is based on your understanding of your own religion which can make you subject to manipulation. That is not to say that studying other religions isn’t beneficial.
Bolding in the above quote is mine, which points to my confusion regarding your argument. Why then is clarity regarding Hitler’s christianity so important if the consequences of either scenario are the same?
Well I’m learning more and more about Islam, and I’m getting increasingly intolerant about it
Strongly agree.
I’m pretty sure that Hitler believed in a kind of Social Darwinism. Crush the weak, breed a master race, etc. He might still have considered himself a Christian, but that definitely goes against the teachings of anyone in the New Testament.
IMO, the strongest statement Jesus made for separating church and state is the fact that He did not overthrow Rome or incite rebellions against it, even though people expected him to. Power and Christianity are meant to be kept far apart, as religion and politics have a corrupting influence on each other. I wonder if it was Augustine who caused Christianity to start its downward turn.
My point really, at this stage, has nothing more to do with any specific religion. Instead, it has to do with the misuse of religion by those in power, for the simple purpose of controlling possible dissidents and remaining in power.
It could be, and has been, done with every religion I can think of.
Studying one point of view, especially about things as powerful as god and religion, is dangerous. If someone is told something at the right place and time enough times, then they will believe it. This is the problem in the Middle East, more than Israel, Judaism, Arab Nationalism, and Islam.
I don’t think things would be better in the Middle East if the people studied other religions. I think what would be better is a better understanding of their own religion, so that they’ll be less vulnerable to the misuse of it. I think a lot of people associate themselves with a religion without understanding all of what it means. That’s how people can call themselves Christians but go against the most important teachings of the New Testament.
Really, a better understanding of what their own ideals truly mean is important for everyone. Bush misuses the concept of freedom in the same way that he misuses religion. I don’t think most Americans understand the true ideals that the country was founded on.
Talon - you may want to reread thshdw’s post. He said studying only “One point of view” is dangerous. Simply knowing that different POVs exist within the same area of study is a breakthrough (or heresy) for some.
I might extend the point by saying truth-value applies well to matters of fact, but to speak of what an ideal truly is indicates confusion, naivite or perhaps just an entirely acceptable imprecision. Surely the pious can emphasize different aspects of Xtian (or Islamic, or US nationalistic) doctrine with validity. They can even disagree on which parts are most important.
Re: the OP. Beats me. I would frame the question as, “Which social innoculations are more effective in preventing genocide, relative to other methods?” To approach this, I might study WWII Denmark, and other settings where some have resisted evil.
This is a discussion for another place, but Paul (or writings attributed him by the church) said some pretty nasty stuff about the Jews who did not accept his new religion.
Maybe not. The OP alluded to Paul’s bigotry. Furthermore I don’t feel our exchange warrants a thread of its own. I’m only justifyig my decision in case other’s perceive me as dissing an administrator. I am actng in the best interests of the SDMB.
So, are you saying that makes Paul a bigot? I just want to make sure, because if you say yes, I’ll have a very cute answer for you 
I have exactly no beef with your argument thshdw. I might note that this has very little to do with the article in question, and more fitting to be in Great Debates, but so it goes.
Education itself is one issue. But moreso is the emphasis of that education and of course the state of life in the country.
Covering the stance of different religions in class could be potentially eye-opening, or simply an exercise in rote memorization depending on how the course is taught. Cuba, the USSR, Japan, etc. have or had supposedly impressive schooling, yet the ability of the people to not be carried away by the wills of the government is absent. Japan is a democracy even.
The issue isn’t people’s education so much as the goal of that education. If it isn’t trying to enforce the idea of individualism, then regardless of how much problem solving or information memorization the students may have accomplished, you’re just going to end up with technically capable, possibly even creative thinking, fodder for the government. Being able to come up with new and impressive ways to launch a few thousand tons of metal into orbit can still leave you without the gumption to say a word when told to cut corners to save costs, even though you may know that such will result in loss of life.
Coming up with a curriculum that brings out the “gumption” in its students would be really the only way to combat some new flavor of naziism. And at the moment I think that this is being done much more by families than the school system in the US or other democratic nations that have a vocal populace. And probably that is still at too low a level to really consider ourselves safe. One just has to look at the ridiculously low level of party propoganda emails sent out and forwarded and forwarded to see how much of the nation doesn’t take two seconds to look critically at what sounds good to their emotions.
Sage Rat, I agree.
But, I suppose, this has become a question of symantics and the definition of education.
But that’s okay. I managed to find a way to make people think. That is my definition of education, anyway.
I would like to add to the chorus of voices praising thshdw’s thoughtful, intelligent post and I too hope you decide to join.
With the lively intellectual culture here, expect anything you say to be questioned, challenged, picked apart. Anyone who proposes a serious argument here has to be prepared to defend it with reliably factual information. But I think in general the community has a good record of treating all people fairly. If I advance a poorly formed argument, the honest criticism I get in response really helps me to sharpen up my thinking. It’s a boon to thinkers and writers when done right.
More posts like that first one would make you a credit to the Straight Dope community. Welcome! 
I don’t know if I agree. Research has been done into the psychology of dictatorships and usually there are a few key ingredients to a truly dangerous dictatorship
-the individual means nothing except as a tool to be used by the state
-truly evil people are everywhere in and outside of the nation and must be stopped. Losing the battle against this evil is too horrifying to even risk letting happen.
-the end justifies the means
-the future will be a paradise, but the short term may be hard
-there is an ideal, utopian state, but we are not there yet. We are currently a flawed state that needs massive reform. The leaders can provide this reform.
-all criticism is a form of treason and weakens the country, giving the enemies a needed edge and must be dealt with brutally (see point 2).
A good cult of personality dictatorship is similiar to a good cult in how it is run. Read the books ‘thought control and the psychology of totalism’ (which was mediocre) or 'combatting cult mind control (which was amazing) for more info on the psychology of cults and how it applies to dictatorships. At the risk of sounding like a troll, the only right wing christian who I’ve heard who sounds like a potential dictator is Michael Savage. He has constantly called for the arrest and deportation of liberals, critics and other ‘undesirables’ and unlike Ann Coulter, I think he is serious in his fanaticism and belief that the individual doesn’t matter except as a tool to support a utopian state. I can see him agreeing with every dictator point I’ve listed above.
however, this is a liberal democracy and that will not happen. But the fact that attitudes like his can get millions upon millions of listeners is somewhat frightening.
Also, most christians in the US aren’t really fundamentalist, they are more liberal christians (ie, they care more about helping the poor and being decent people than they do about creationism). I don’t have a statistic on hand for that right now as I’m on dialup and can’t really research anything.
On another note Hitler and Stalin were pretty well educated. Hitler’s friend when he was a kid talked about how he would read every book in the library and had tons of ideas, and Stalin was considered the smartest pupil at his school. Sociopathy in leadership, a country that is desperate due to war/disease/famine/etc and a population that is willing to believe in utopia seem to be the bigger risks for dictatorship and brutality, not education. Most of the mass murders in the 20th century occured in the USSR, Nazi germany or China. Things like open, accountable government with empathetic leadership; a government made of slow bureaucracy filled with checks and balances; realism that makes people realize ‘utopia’ is a dangerous fantasy and a tolerance of/respect for ones enemies (instead of a fear that they will create hell on earth) are what are needed to fight these things.
The Weimar Republic was a liberal democracy, too.
It was a new, untested government existing during extremely stressful times. It isn’t comparable to the current US system.