Obama's Dimestore "Mien Kampf"

[Universe Prince]

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

In the U.S. right now, yes, though not to an overwhelming degree. In Europe right now, I cannot say for sure one way or the other, though it probably still exists there in some fashion.

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

That depends much on what one means by making the nation more Christian.

[Universe Prince]

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

Sirs, the term was explained. The lack of insidious intent of use was explained. That you continued to make ridiculous objections to the use of the term is no one's fault but yours. As I said before, if you can convince the rest of the world to use a different term, by all means go right ahead. I see little point in making up new terms here just to appease you and Rich.

[Plane]

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

Sirs, the term was explained. The lack of insidious intent of use was explained. That you continued to make ridiculous objections to the use of the term is no one's fault but yours. As I said before, if you can convince the rest of the world to use a different term, by all means go right ahead. I see little point in making up new terms here just to appease you and Rich.

Do you understand how an alarm was rung?

Or how unringing a bell is difficult?

[Rich]

>> I see little point in making up new terms here just to appease you and Rich.<<

I never argued about the term. No need to appease me. My argument is with the connection, as if somehow Christianity had everything to do with the success of Hitler.

No need to go into it again. You've made your position clear.

[Universe Prince]

Do you understand how an alarm was rung?

No, in this instance, I really don't. The only reason that I am bothering to continue in this thread is that I am very much trying to understand. For whatever reason the notion that the term "Christian nationalism" or its use in regard to fascism might make someone think the intent of the user was to detrimentally link Nazism with Christianity, it simply never occurred to me at any point in my previous research. That it has come up now is still something of a mystery to me. What is the alternative? "Nationalism that uses Christian ideas and language but isn't really in line with Christ's teachings" seems extremely cumbersome and, frankly, ridiculous.

Or how unringing a bell is difficult?

I'm sure it is. But the term and its use was explained, several times. For the flying love of pepperoni pizza, what more must be done!

[Universe Prince]

My argument is with the connection, as if somehow Christianity had everything to do with the success of Hitler.

No one, with the exception of you and Sirs and possibly Plane, made that connection. So then your argument should be with yourself, not with JS, not with me.

[Rich]

>>No, in this instance, I really don't.<<

No without Christianity there could be no Hitler. Is that what you're saying? In response I would say that liberalism had more to do with fascism than Christianity.

Anyway ... Once the bell has been rung, people with less morals than you Prince, will point to this in order to say Christianity is the same as Nazism. Look at BO, it's exactly what he's doing right now. So, while in a scholastic vacuum we can discuss the bit part Christianity played in any number of things, but in this instance it should always be portrayed as an abomination, not the genuine article.

[Rich]

>>No one, with the exception of you and Sirs and possibly Plane, made that connection. So then your argument should be with yourself, not with JS, not with me.<<

I hope I explained this in my previous post. By the way, your argument is with the three people here, now. Unless you're arguing to hear yourself argue.

[Universe Prince]

No without Christianity there could be no Hitler. Is that what you're saying?

No.

Anyway ... Once the bell has been rung, people with less morals than you Prince, will point to this in order to say Christianity is the same as Nazism.

And I'd say they would be just as wrong as someone denying that Christian nationalism was part of the rise of fascism in 1930s Europe.

So, while in a scholastic vacuum we can discuss the bit part Christianity played in any number of things, but in this instance it should always be portrayed as an abomination, not the genuine article.

As I said before, "Nationalism that uses Christian ideas and language but isn't really in line with Christ's teachings" seems extremely cumbersome and, frankly, ridiculous. And writing paragraphs of explanation after each and every use of the term would be even worse. So as I also said before, if you can convince the rest of the world to use a different term, by all means go right ahead.

[sirs]

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

Sirs, the term was explained. The lack of insidious intent of use was explained.

No, it wasn't, not satisfactorily at least....thus the continued criticisms applied

[Plane]

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

Sirs, the term was explained. The lack of insidious intent of use was explained.

No, it wasn't, not satisfactorily at least....thus the continued criticisms applied

I think we have all caught on by now .

 I have had this sort of problem myself , assuming that something I was referring to was a tool found in everyones kit and being surprised at the misunderstanding my assumption caused.

If I were to say that this task were like the task of Sisyphus I imagine that most of us would have learned the tale of Sisyphus and the reference would to all of these be effective , but in any large group there would be a subset that had not yet heard the tale of Sisyphus and the small number that was unfamiliar would find my reference cryptic.   

There is a large kit of abbreviations that allow efficient communication when the communicator and communicatee share the previous experience or knowledge, but there is a ratio of usefullness to commonness in the case of each of these tools  , University education makes a lot of tools available to alumnus , but old TV programs do even better . I imagine that more of us would understand "Like Gilligan" than would understand " Like Electra".

So what can be done to promote commonality of cultural experience and shared terms and knowledge? There are so many potential usefull tools , things that can abbreviate complex ideas if the user can depend on the hearer to know the reference already , but that the user can't depend on the hearer having ever heard. Can we make sure that a standard kit of fables , historical incidents , cultural icons etc. is disseminated universally ? No, of course not ,the task is Sisyphean.

[Universe Prince]

No, it wasn't, not satisfactorily at least....thus the continued criticisms applied

Then I submit there is no explanation and no amount of explanation that you would find satisfactory. Which doesn't make your criticism any less ridiculous or insulting.

[Universe Prince]

If I were to say that this task were like the task of Sisyphus I imagine that most of us would have learned the tale of Sisyphus and the reference would to all of these be effective , but in any large group there would be a subset that had not yet heard the tale of Sisyphus and the small number that was unfamiliar would find my reference cryptic.

Indeed. Yet I feel certain if I didn't know of Sisyphus I would ask what you meant rather than assume you had some insidious intent and then criticize that insidious intent.

[sirs]

No, it wasn't, not satisfactorily at least....thus the continued criticisms applied

Then I submit there is no explanation and no amount of explanation that you would find satisfactory. Which doesn't make your criticism any less ridiculous or insulting.

Actually there was....and very simple in concept and application.  I'll paraphrase...."My apologies sirs & Rich.  What Js & I were trying to make clear was that despite the use Hitler had of Christian Nationalism, in pushing the Nazi movement, that in no way should be considered a foundation to the Christian religion or doctrine.  It would be akin to what Militant Islam is to the Islamic religion"

THAT explanation, made in post #2 following anyone's initial criticisms or repeating Hitler with Christianity, would have put this to bed, Looooooooooong ago

[Plane]

If I were to say that this task were like the task of Sisyphus I imagine that most of us would have learned the tale of Sisyphus and the reference would to all of these be effective , but in any large group there would be a subset that had not yet heard the tale of Sisyphus and the small number that was unfamiliar would find my reference cryptic.

Indeed. Yet I feel certain if I didn't know of Sisyphus I would ask what you meant rather than assume you had some insidious intent and then criticize that insidious intent.

The phenomenon is more interesting than that.
Suppose that I used a word you weren't familiar with , but that you thought you understood?

As in this case; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/jan99/district27.htm


Suppose you didn't know what a "Libertine" was and though that my calling it a bad thing was a criticism of Libertarianism?