national socialism does not mean religious socialism. however, much of hitler’s philosophy came from the bible, his religious upbringing, and more specifically from the german christain social movement. he concentrated his effort in politics, not religion, but through his political reasoning he established the german reich christian church, uniting the protestant churches under national german christianity. hitler could not have come into power without the support of the protestant and catholic churches and, yes, the german populace, but just because he was elected bythe people does not mean his policies were right.
"hence today i believe that i am acting in accordance with the will of the almighty creator: by defending myself against the jew, i am fighting for the work of the lord."
"christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars."
both of the above are quotes from mein kampf, published circa 1925, about ten years before hitler rose to power in germany.
it’s interesting to me that you think that religious beliefs of the american electorate are summarized in the politicians they elect when so much of it is left un-discussed. do we elect politicians because they say they will fill bills with pork? accept bribes form lobbyists? let taxpayers pay for a jet flight to some swanky vacation spot? get bj’s in the oval office? forge evidence? employ illegal aliens? and yet they do all those things and more.
when it comes to politics, dissemination is the name of the game. religion in politics is slightly different: politicians may say they are a follower of this or that denomination, but what does that truly say a bout a person? not much. i can say i am protestant, but does that mean that i agree and prefer to follow the five solas? reject roman catholic dogma? or could it be that i prefer to follow a religion that has a history of attracting anti-semitics and was indeed founded by an anti-semitic (“on the jews and their lies”, luther, 1543) or it could mean that i am calvinist or baptist or methodist or lutheran or quaker…all denominations that easily fall under the broader category of protestant. what is more obscure still is how a politician’s religious beliefs will affect his/her policy forming, and whether those policies will benefit or derail. it is impossible to know unless and until it does so. the election of an official with religious beliefs does not mean that the people have given absolute authority to that elected official to make policy based on those beliefs without censure. when the people feel that their elected leaders have strayed from initial expectations, they will speak up…as many people are doing today.
i do not argue which came first, the need or the god, or from whence it came. i only argue that certain truths are universally necessary to ensure a safe society. making murder and theft illegal keeps citizens safer - physically and in the knowledge that criminals will not only not be tolerated, but will be removed from law-abiding society, thus acting as deterrent. we have not turned exodus 13 and 15 into law, or we would have turned 1 through 12, 14, and 16 through 26 into law, too. we have made laws that help ensure a prosperous society, not ones that put restrictions on society. that they are simultaneously religious tenents is not coincidence, but only re-inforces my assertion that they are universal.
Quote:
|
I prefer a democratic process, even if once removed, to an undemocratic process.
|
as do i, but it is not without its faults: "it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those others that have been before."
~ winston chuchill