Obama's Dimestore "Mien Kampf"

[Plane]

    Christians need to examine new ideas in the light of Christ , if Hitler was using Christian language in a perverse way he wasn't inventing anything.

Indeed, and I believe that was pointed out as well.

I did not see why such great offense was taken either.

So should Obama feel no offense at his work being placed in juxtaposition to itlers writings?

[Xavier_Onassis]

So should Obama feel no offense at his work being placed in juxtaposition to Hitlers writings?
=======================================================
Consider that this was coming from Ann Coulter.

I suppose he would feel offense, but no more than Paris Hilton would when one of her poodles pooped on her mansion floor.
Ann Coulters writings are the verbal equivalent to poodlepoop, after all.

Anyone who runs for president can expect to catch flak from every conceivable direction.
As Superchicken always reminded his faithful sidekick, Fred the Lion "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it."

[Universe Prince]

So should Obama feel no offense at his work being placed in juxtaposition to itlers writings?

Considering the source, probably not. One expects that sort of nonsense from Ann Coulter. Seems to me the offense for Obama would be if Coulter liked and endorsed his book.

Anyway, I don't understand why you're asking that question. For one thing, that wasn't the offense JS and I were talking about. For another, no one was concerned about whether or not Obama might have been offended.

[Plane]

So should Obama feel no offense at his work being placed in juxtaposition to itlers writings?

Considering the source, probably not. One expects that sort of nonsense from Ann Coulter. Seems to me the offense for Obama would be if Coulter liked and endorsed his book.

Anyway, I don't understand why you're asking that question. For one thing, that wasn't the offense JS and I were talking about. For another, no one was concerned about whether or not Obama might have been offended.

It was simular in shape.

[Universe Prince]

I have no idea what that means. Forgive my ignorance. Please, if you would, explain your comment. What, exactly, was similar in shape to what, exactly? And what bearing does that have on my comments?

[Plane]

So should Obama feel no offense at his work being placed in juxtaposition to itlers writings?

Considering the source, probably not. One expects that sort of nonsense from Ann Coulter. Seems to me the offense for Obama would be if Coulter liked and endorsed his book.

Anyway, I don't understand why you're asking that question. For one thing, that wasn't the offense JS and I were talking about. For another, no one was concerned about whether or not Obama might have been offended.

It was simular in shape.

"Has anybody read this book? Inasmuch as the book reveals Obama to be a flabbergasting lunatic, I gather the answer is no. Obama is about to be our next president: You might want to take a peek. If only people had read "Mein Kampf" ... "

"Because Hitler's rise to power is a remarkable testament to Christian nationalism."

"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Rich on April 07, 2008, 02:37:56 PM

LMAO@ Christian Nationalism!




Quote from: sirs on April 07, 2008, 02:39:48 PM

Hitler was only following Christ's teachings, right?   



"Do you deny that Hitler used aspects of Christian theology as part of the Nazi Party's control of the German society? "


[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

Compareing Obama's work to Hitlers work then dropping the comparison uncontrasted ,  isn't fair, to make such a comparison and leave the contrast undone implys a simularity between the authors , perhaps without any justifacation at all.

Perhaps the main simularity is that they both used ink and paper, this is left un- examined un- fairly.

"Christian Nationalism" should be contrasted with "Christianity" if there is any diffrence.

[sirs]

Well deduced, Plane

[Universe Prince]

Plane, I'm in doubt that you actually answered my questions. I'm not quite sure how pointing out that the Nazis used Christian nationalism is similar in shape to Coulter's attempt to equate Obama's book and Mein Kampf. At no time was anyone trying to equate Christianity and Nazism.

Compareing Obama's work to Hitlers work then dropping the comparison uncontrasted ,  isn't fair, to make such a comparison and leave the contrast undone implys a simularity between the authors , perhaps without any justifacation at all.

Well, I believe trying to imply a similarity between the authors was Coulter's intent.

Perhaps the main simularity is that they both used ink and paper, this is left un- examined un- fairly.

I don't think you're giving Coulter enough credit. (I can't believe I just said that.) She is making a case that Obama is an angry man out for power to correct perceived injustices to his race. You know, like Hitler. Hence the Mein Kampf reference. That much she made plain even to stupid ol' me.

"Christian Nationalism" should be contrasted with "Christianity" if there is any diffrence.

Okay, then do so. Denying that the Nazis used Christian nationalism is not pointing out a difference. It's just denial. And I don't recall anyone objecting to the notion of pointing out that Christian nationalism is not really part of Christ's teachings. That doesn't mean Christian nationalism doesn't exist. I get that some people seem outrageously offended by the name, still unsure why, but I get it. So by all means, when anyone points out that fascists used Christian nationalism, feel free to point out that doesn't mean fascism is in line with Christ's teachings. On the other hand, if people want to deny that Christian nationalism exists and/or was used, then that they don't know what they're talking about is what is going to be pointed out.

You, Sirs, and Rich are the only three people I have ever known who seem to be offended by the use of the term "Christian nationalism". Not even the other conservative Christians I know have a problem with this term, and I have talked this issue over with several them in my attempt to understand why you, Sirs and Rich seem to have such a problem with it. So I am still at a loss to explain this weird objection raised to commenting about the Nazis using Christian nationalism.

I am, however, starting to get really annoyed with the implication that JS and I are somehow out to link our own faith (we're both Christians; he is Catholic, and I am Protestant) with Nazism. Do you really think we trying to connect what we believe with Hitler and the Nazis? If you do, you must have extraordinarily low opinions of us. Neither of us was, are, or intend to make such a connection. That I am even having to explain this, again, is what is really offensive here.

If terms like "Christian nationalism" or "Positive Christianity" offend you, that is too bad. If you want the terms explained, no one here is going to stop you from explaining them or from asking for clarification. And if you can convince the world at large to use some other terms for these things, more power to ya. In the meantime, criticizing people for using these common terms (common in the context of the issue of fascism in 1930s Europe) is ridiculous, and that is putting it mildly.

[Plane]

If terms like "Christian nationalism" or "Positive Christianity" offend you, that is too bad. If you want the terms explained, no one here is going to stop you from explaining them or from asking for clarification. And if you can convince the world at large to use some other terms for these things, more power to ya. In the meantime, criticizing people for using these common terms (common in the context of the issue of fascism in 1930s Europe) is ridiculous, and that is putting it mildly.[/color]

I didn't know it was a common term , I am just now being introduced to it.

Is it really so commonly understood that I should have already been familiar it or that my familiarity with it should have bveen a safe assumption?

[Universe Prince]

I didn't know it was a common term , I am just now being introduced to it.

Is it really so commonly understood that I should have already been familiar it or that my familiarity with it should have bveen a safe assumption?

It is common, as I said, in the context of the issue of fascism in 1930s Europe. It is common in the discussion of other things as well, like the Crusades. To those who have not studied such matters, it is probably not common.

Anyway, I now get to repeat myself again. Ready? Here we go.

"I admit having believed, and apparently having been wrong in the belief, that the fact of use of Christian nationalism by Hitler and the Nazis was pretty much widely accepted. It is part of the historical record, and in even a basic examination of the Nazis' rise to power, or indeed of the rise of fascism in the 1930s, this easily seen. Or at least, it was to me. Don't misunderstand me. I'm not claiming to be smarter or more knowledgeable that anyone else here, I'm just saying, as I have looked into it, the presence of Christian nationalism seems fairly obvious to me. And while I have not read Mein Kampf as a whole, I have read excerpts. And of what I've read, many passages seem to be written as by a Christian (however misguided and/or twisted his religious ideas might have been) expounding on the importance of his faith; i.e. talking about doing "the work of the Lord", quoting scripture and discussing the importance of the church to society. So I have to say, that Hitler used Christian scripture and Christian language, that Christian nationalism was influential in the rise of the Nazis, et cetera, that these things appeared in a discussion of Mein Kampf certainly does not seem out of place or incongruent at all. Talking about Mein Kampf in any even remotely meaningful way without bringing any of that up, now that would seem incongruent."
--http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=5905.msg58854#msg58854

In my experience, Plane, the term "Christian nationalism" is common when discussing these matters. But again, if there was an issue with the meaning of the term, a request for clarification would have been more useful, imo, than criticizing people for using the term or trying to lay down the ridiculous accusation that the term was used with the intent to make Christianity seem fundamentally linked with Nazism. Yes, the term is common enough that when JS used it, I knew exactly what he meant and had no idea that it needed to be explained. Since that moment, however, I believe the term has been explained several times here, and the notion that there was intent to use the term to denigrate Christianity has also been debunked now several times. Is more explanation really necessary? If so, then I question whether further attempts at explanation would be worth the effort.

[Plane]

Is Christian Nationalism present in the US , or in modern Europe?

Makeing the nation more Christian is a diffrent aim, I suppose, than makeing Christian more Nationalistic.

[sirs]

In my experience, Plane, the term "Christian nationalism" is common when discussing these matters. But again, if there was an issue with the meaning of the term, a request for clarification would have been more useful, imo, than criticizing people for using the term or trying to lay down the ridiculous accusation that the term was used with the intent to make Christianity seem fundamentally linked with Nazism.

Where as, in my experience, when a term or concept is being criticized, and one realizes that the basis of the criticism is a decreased awareness of the term and how it's basically a tweaked version of X (in this case, Christianity), and that the c/o's being lodged are unnecessary because of that.  If they're not aware of the basis, they then would initiate greater clarity of the concept, vs continuing to apply the same concept being criticized

[Plane]

In my experience, Plane, the term "Christian nationalism" is common when discussing these matters. But again, if there was an issue with the meaning of the term, a request for clarification would have been more useful, imo, than criticizing people for using the term or trying to lay down the ridiculous accusation that the term was used with the intent to make Christianity seem fundamentally linked with Nazism.

Where as, in my experience, when a term or concept is being criticized, and one realizes that the basis of the criticism is a decreased awareness of the term and how it's basically a tweaked version of X (in this case, Christianity), and that the c/o's being lodged are unnecessary because of that.  If they're not aware of the basis, they then would initiate greater clarity of the concept, vs continuing to apply the same concept being criticized

Even so it is a diffrent anamal to say that Hitler used Christianity than to say that Christ used Hitler.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Even so it is a diffrent anamal to say that Hitler used Christianity than to say that Christ used Hitler.
============================================================================
I would imagine that this would be so, especially since Jesus was dead, or in Heaven during the entire time Hitler lived. If Jesus used Hitler, I can't think of any evidence or purpose involved.

Jesus SAID he was returning, but my observation is that no one has seen him lately. There have been many more sightings of Elvis. But even those seem to have been bogus.

It might have been helpful had Jesus appeared to the guards at Auschwitz, Treblinka or Bergan-Belsen, or perhaps to the prisoners. But there is no evidence that this happened.

[Plane]

To have Jesus involved in my life is a particular desire of mine , when I make decisions without this consideration I make decisions the wrong way .