Scheer's policy failure

[Glacier]

It's not about the religiosity of Hitler or not. It's that Christianity, the crucifixion of Christ, etc. were used as excuses by those of the time who engaged in running the death camps, etc. This is not revisionist history, I know a German from that era and he said as much. He lived in Nazi heartland and I trust his explanation over yours, sorry. Religion was used as an excuse, as it continues to be used.

BTW, Christian and Catholic aren't the same. Hitler obviously had a major issue with the Catholic church.

And Goebbels wanted to eliminate Protestantism.

Ya, I know a guy who knew someone once who worked at NASA, and the moon landing was faked... Not really, but that's called anecdotal evidence, which isn't really much evidence at all. The fact is, you cannot name a single bible verse any Nazi ever used to justify killing Jews. That is not to say that Christians haven't acted horribly toward Jews (they have), but it's not a Biblical teaching that drives antisemitism. You see lots of non-religious antisemites too... Antisemitism seems to be a universal human problem.

By contrast, you can't name a single thing ISIS is doing that ISN'T grounded in scripture.

You are just making stuff up as you go along, or maybe you've be led astray from radical leftist friends. Islam is sacred to you or something? I would love to think that all religions are equal. I want to believe with my whole heart that they are all there to find inner peace. I used to think that, but I had an argument with a guy once and lost. Empirically, there is only one religion whose scriptures promote lying, rape, and violence. You can make up facts all day long, or you can know someone who knew someone with inside information, but that doesn't change reality. It is not "Islamophobic" to state facts (unless you're living on Shariah Law).

EDIT: You keep bringing up the phrase "used as excuses." Let me explain that for you. If I'm posting pictures of naked women on Castanet, and the mods ban me, I could use a number of things as an excuse. I could say that they were so beautiful that I needed to share them with everyone. I could say that mainstream Canadian culture likes porn, so there was no harm. I could say that the Bible depicts Adam and Eve as naked in the beginning, so there's no harm.

But I broke the rules, these are excuses, and not actual reasons. By contrast, when a radical Muslim rapes a captured woman or beheads someone, they are not offering excuses, they are offering sound reasons for their actions with scriptural evidence. The moderate Muslims and the Infidels can comb the scriptures all day long, and not be able to refuse their scriptural reasons.

[neilsimon]

Don't you see that sometimes violence is the best solution we have, and that hatred can be justified and lead to good results?

was this directly quoted from Gandhi or Mandela? Anyway, this is Canada, and what you wrote above is disgusting and abhorrent. Just gross. I am truly ashamed for you and everyone else that would agree with the above horrible statement.

Stop taking my quotes out of context. Violence is sometimes the best solution we have, such as using force to subdue a violent offender, etc. Hatred of racism is completely understandable and justifiable and only a racist would think otherwise.

It is pathetic that you have to engage in such strawman arguments.

[neilsimon]

Don't you see that sometimes violence is the best solution we have, and that hatred can be justified and lead to good results?

OMG. It's difficult for me to imagine believing hatred can truly be justified. Understood in some circumstances, but not justified. I'm struggling to understand why anyone would suggest this.

How did we get to the point where the use of violence to suppress free speech on a university campus can be framed as the best solution we have, and hatred is justified?

My God, have you joined the strawman school of arguing too? That's taking my quote out of context and entirely misses the point. I could just as easily and accurately quote you thus:

the use of violence to suppress free speech on a university campus can be framed as the best solution we have

It's about as complete and in context as what you are pretending I wrote to be.
Please don't descend to the same level of arguing as some others feel the need to do.

[ferri]

[neilsimon]

...
And Goebbels wanted to eliminate Protestantism.

Ya, I know a guy who knew someone once who worked at NASA, and the moon landing was faked... Not really, but that's called anecdotal evidence, which isn't really much evidence at all. The fact is, you cannot name a single bible verse any Nazi ever used to justify killing Jews. That is not to say that Christians haven't acted horribly toward Jews (they have), but it's not a Biblical teaching that drives antisemitism. You see lots of non-religious antisemites too... Antisemitism seems to be a universal human problem.

By contrast, you can't name a single thing ISIS is doing that ISN'T grounded in scripture.

You are just making stuff up as you go along, or maybe you've be led astray from radical leftist friends. Islam is sacred to you or something? I would love to think that all religions are equal. I want to believe with my whole heart that they are all there to find inner peace. I used to think that, but I had an argument with a guy once and lost. Empirically, there is only one religion whose scriptures promote lying, rape, and violence. You can make up facts all day long, or you can know someone who knew someone with inside information, but that doesn't change reality. It is not "Islamophobic" to state facts (unless you're living on Shariah Law).

EDIT: You keep bringing up the phrase "used as excuses." Let me explain that for you. If I'm posting pictures of naked women on Castanet, and the mods ban me, I could use a number of things as an excuse. I could say that they were so beautiful that I needed to share them with everyone. I could say that mainstream Canadian culture likes porn, so there was no harm. I could say that the Bible depicts Adam and Eve as naked in the beginning, so there's no harm.

But I broke the rules, these are excuses, and not actual reasons. By contrast, when a radical Muslim rapes a captured woman or beheads someone, they are not offering excuses, they are offering sound reasons for their actions with scriptural evidence. The moderate Muslims and the Infidels can comb the scriptures all day long, and not be able to refuse their scriptural reasons.

Okay, you don't want to believe that Nazis used their own belief in Christianity as an excuse, fine, but there is just far too much evidence to the contrary, including religious institutions working with the Nazis: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022009407071629
ETA: Another, maybe more your kind of thing: https://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/issues-v16-n10/hitler-s-theologians-the-genesis-of-genocide/
You want to pretend that I am making stuff up, fine, but I can vividly recall my conversation. It was in a little town called Lutersheim. The thing is this, I really don't like any religion at all. I don't like Islam, and I don't like Christianity, but I know enough to know that the religions aren't fundamentally different at the core and that it takes cognitive dissonance to think otherwise.

[Glacier]

You want to pretend that I am making stuff up, fine, but I can vividly recall my conversation. It was in a little town called Lutersheim. The thing is this, I really don't like any religion at all. I don't like Islam, and I don't like Christianity, but I know enough to know that the religions aren't fundamentally different at the core and that it takes cognitive dissonance to think otherwise.

You clearly haven't studied the world's religions in any depth then. The contrast between the founder of Christianity and founder of Islam couldn't be more contrasting. I get that you don't like any religions, which is why you desperately want them to all be equally bad. That's why you have a double standard. You think that an agnostic like Anders Breivik is a pious Christian just as Anjem Chourdary is a pious Muslim.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi uses Islamic scripture to justify ISIS, and studies the scriptures to confirm it. Everything they do is straight out of Scripture. By contrast, Anders Breivik doesn't really believe in the bible, nor did Hitler. He might use the Bible for his own gain among the people, but he was not following it.

Again, I will ask you to provide a single biblical reference that justified the Holocaust. There are none. Yes, the Church has been anti-Semetic for centuries, but this is a historic cultural belief; it is not a religiously based hatred. By contrast, Islamic scriptures dedicate more percentage to Jew Hatred than Mein Kampf does.

Here's right from the link you posted:

Though Hitler used Christian jargon to spout his venom, his actions opposed the teachings of both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament.

[neilsimon]

You want to pretend that I am making stuff up, fine, but I can vividly recall my conversation. It was in a little town called Lutersheim. The thing is this, I really don't like any religion at all. I don't like Islam, and I don't like Christianity, but I know enough to know that the religions aren't fundamentally different at the core and that it takes cognitive dissonance to think otherwise.

You clearly haven't studied the world's religions in any depth then. The contrast between the founder of Christianity and founder of Islam couldn't be more contrasting.

Both of their Gods look pretty much the same to me. I get that some people like to take their personal interpretation and use that to put down the other side, but God, as portrayed in the Old Testament is extremely violent, vindictive, and vicious.

I get that you don't like any religions, which is why you desperately want them to all be equally bad. That's why you have a double standard. You think that an agnostic like Anders Breivik is a pious Christian just as Anjem Chourdary is a pious Muslim.

Nope

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi uses Islamic scripture to justify ISIS, and studies the scriptures to confirm it. Everything they do is straight out of Scripture. By contrast, Anders Breivik doesn't really believe in the bible, nor did Hitler. He might use the Bible for his own gain among the people, but he was not following it.

Again, I will ask you to provide a single biblical reference that justified the Holocaust. There are none. Yes, the Church has been anti-Semetic for centuries, but this is a historic cultural belief; it is not a religiously based hatred. By contrast, Islamic scriptures dedicate more percentage to Jew Hatred than Mein Kampf does.

Here's right from the link you posted:

Though Hitler used Christian jargon to spout his venom, his actions opposed the teachings of both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament.

Yes, Hitler used Christian jargon, as ISIS use Islamic jargon. Plenty of scholars have claimed that ISIS are not justified by the teachings of Muhammed. Anyway, have your response and then, let us get:

[Glacier]

Yes, Hitler used Christian jargon, as ISIS use Islamic jargon. Plenty of scholars have claimed that ISIS are not justified by the teachings of Muhammed. Anyway, have your response and then, let us get:

Yes, yes, you're right... back on topic we go. I guess we disagree because I think ISIS is following the example of Muhammad and you don't, and we'll have to save that disagreement for another topic some other time.

Andrew Scheer... well at least it wasn't O'Leary or Leitch who won! Maybe we can agree on that.

[Ka-El]

let us get:

Andy Scheer - he's just not ready

[Glacier]

let us get:

Andy Scheer - he's just not ready

Andy Scheer - not a leader, not worth the risk.

[rustled]

Don't you see that sometimes violence is the best solution we have, and that hatred can be justified and lead to good results?

OMG. It's difficult for me to imagine believing hatred can truly be justified. Understood in some circumstances, but not justified. I'm struggling to understand why anyone would suggest this.

How did we get to the point where the use of violence to suppress free speech on a university campus can be framed as the best solution we have, and hatred is justified?

My God, have you joined the strawman school of arguing too? That's taking my quote out of context and entirely misses the point. I could just as easily and accurately quote you thus:

the use of violence to suppress free speech on a university campus can be framed as the best solution we have

It's about as complete and in context as what you are pretending I wrote to be.
Please don't descend to the same level of arguing as some others feel the need to do.

Hm. Well, I've gone back to read what you wrote. It seemed pretty clear to me you were saying that sometimes, using violence and hatred is necessary for the greater good. Was that not what you actually meant? If not, it's easy to clarify. Just say so.

And because you wrote what you wrote in this thread about shutting down undesirable speakers on university campuses, it seemed to me you were indicating violence and hatred may be necessary for this specific "greater good". If you didn't mean it in the context of this thread, it's easy to clarify simply by stating you don't believe it's right for others to use violence and hatred to shout down and shut down the speakers they don't think should be allowed on university campuses.

It's a marvel to me this has even become such an issue on our university campuses that Scheer felt the need to say anything about it. Once upon a time, people in universities were expected to figure this stuff out for themselves. Now, society has decided those who attend universities must be protected from messaging they shouldn't be allowed to hear. So if there's any violence and hatred involved in keeping university campuses free from anything that could be considered hate speech, it's given a free pass. And any politician who has qualms about reversing this trend quickly regrets having made the attempt.

Scheer's off to a bad start.

[neilsimon]

...
Hm. Well, I've gone back to read what you wrote. It seemed pretty clear to me you were saying that sometimes, using violence and hatred is necessary for the greater good. Was that not what you actually meant? If not, it's easy to clarify. Just say so.

Is it a problem to hate injustice, racism, genocide?
Is it not justifiable to use some violence to prevent greater violence, to stop those who would murder us, to protect the innocent?
That is quite simply what I meant that sometimes violence is the best solution we have, and that hatred can be justified and lead to good results.

[rustled]

...
Hm. Well, I've gone back to read what you wrote. It seemed pretty clear to me you were saying that sometimes, using violence and hatred is necessary for the greater good. Was that not what you actually meant? If not, it's easy to clarify. Just say so.

Is it a problem to hate injustice, racism, genocide?
Is it not justifiable to use some violence to prevent greater violence, to stop those who would murder us, to protect the innocent?
That is quite simply what I meant that sometimes violence is the best solution we have, and that hatred can be justified and lead to good results.

Nope. But to my mind, it is a problem that so many people refuse to denounce those who incite violence (and yes, hatred of others) to shut down and shout down speakers at universities.

ETA: That's the topic, right? Scheer seeing a problem with that?

[maryjane48]

anyone believing a invented god has mental illness to certain degree. both christianity and islam have been hijacked to commit murder for no other reason than hate and intolerance . does that mean every muslim and christian is bad ? no . but they both have equaly perverted the faith to commit murder . if you deny that your no better .

[neilsimon]

...
Is it a problem to hate injustice, racism, genocide?
Is it not justifiable to use some violence to prevent greater violence, to stop those who would murder us, to protect the innocent?
That is quite simply what I meant that sometimes violence is the best solution we have, and that hatred can be justified and lead to good results.

Nope.

To which question?

But to my mind, it is a problem that so many people refuse to denounce those who incite violence (and yes, hatred of others) to shut down and shout down speakers at universities.

ETA: That's the topic, right? Scheer seeing a problem with that?

Actually, Scheer seems to see that colleges and universities may have to be allowed to set their own policy because the one he seemed to be advocating originally was likely to result in a huge increase in hate speech and hate filled speech at universities. We already accept that complete freedom of speech does not extend to each and every aspect of life, location and time. To use a simple example, we do not allow teachers to show hard-core pornography to kindergarten kids, we do not allow every Tom, Dick and Harry to walk into the House of Commons and deliver whatever speech they want, whenever they want, etc. While it remains important that we do not outlaw speech unnecessarily, there is absolutely no need for the government to force organisations to allow unfettered speech.