Godwin's law states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." In other words, Godwin put forth the sarcastic observation that, given enough time, all discussions—regardless of topic or scope—inevitably end up being about Hitler and the Nazis. -Wikipedia
I'm going to try to tread lightly on here, because I already know that some of my friends are going to disagree with me on this one. But try to keep an open mind to the point I'll be trying to make, please.
In a recent online discussion, I compared the actions of a certain political party to those of Hitler - as a joke. Now, true, this may have been in poor taste. I'm not defending myself for that one. However, one of the responses read:
"Until [insert compared group here] kills 12 million people, I'm not comfortable with anyone comparing anyone else with Hitler."
And that is the inspiration for this post.
I think that there are times where it IS appropriate to compare the actions of people with the actions of Hitler. Why? Because if we don't, then we will never see actual correlations until they're too late. It's true that a group may not yet have killed 12 million people. But their current line of action may be dangerous for society, in the same way that it was when Hitler did it. And thus, the correlation should be drawn. It has been said that if we don't study history, then history is doomed to repeat itself. Well, we need to do more than just study history - we need to be bold enough to point out when history is repeating itself. We do this by drawing correlations.
Let me give a few examples to illustrate my point.
Hitler's biggest strategy for growing nationalism within his citizens was the use of faceless scapegoats. The German economy was in shambles, and who's fault was it? Why, the Jews, of course! It's been proven time and again that if you make people feel like they're being attacked from the outside - be it Jews, illegal immigrants, terrorists, communists, witches, etc. - then the people will band together (under a leader who makes them feel safe) to fight this faceless enemy. It's happened throughout history.
It happens over and over in fiction, too.
In 1984, the country was constantly at war. The war didn't really matter. The enemy kept changing and no one noticed. But the state of war was important. Because they had an enemy to fight, even though no one was sure who it was. It kept the citizens constantly loyal to their country, and constantly on guard against anyone who might subvert the country -- VERY useful for the ruling class.
In Star Wars Episode 3, too. You build a faceless enemy, and the people unite under your rule. Why? Because you're going to make everything all right. You're going to fight the faceless enemy. All you need is their support.
If you depict a Jew as a person, just like any other person, just trying to survive, provide for their family, love their wife, teach their children, work, sleep, eat, pray - then you can't motivate people to hate them, and you can't motivate people to rally behind you to fight them, and you can't gain power by using their fear. You must make them a faceless, nonhuman force. And this is the rhetoric of which I speak.
Now, we come to my point. By looking at Hitler's example of using the faceless scapegoat to gain political power, we should be able to learn from it. We should be able to see when other politicians are trying to create a faceless enemy. Whether it's the "us versus them, good versus evil" mentality of our "war on terror," or whether it's the idea that illegal immigrants are stealing our jobs or living on welfare that we've paid for - politicians use this rhetoric today. And we should be able to see the correlation.
Now, when I say that a politician rallying support against illegal immigrants by making them seem like they're not real people - am I saying that that politician is as evil as Hitler? No. Am I saying that he is as detrimental to society as Hitler? No. All I'm saying is that they're using the same rhetoric, and that we should be aware of it, so that we don't fall for it, the same way that people in Germany did, pre-WWII.
There could be other examples, that's not the point. The point is that there are times when correlations can correctly be drawn, and I see nothing wrong with it.
The problem is that most times the correlations are not correctly drawn. Let me give one example.
I've had a few discussions about atheism. And I've read the argument, "Well, Hitler and Stalin were atheists, and look what they did. Therefore, atheists must be immoral and evil." The problem with this correlation is that it ignores the fact that Hitler's atheism was not the cause of his actions. I believe he did what he did in a quest for political power, which he succeeded in gaining - right until the very end as the war was lost. Blaming Hitler's actions on atheism is like blaming everything George Bush did on the fact that he's a Christian. We never hear that claim, though, do we?
My point is this. Not all correlations to Hitler should be looked at with scorn. If we're afraid to draw these correlations, then we can miss out on many things we can learn from the past. If the correlation is good, we should learn from it. If the correlation doesn't pass the scrutiny of logic, then it should be exposed and discarded.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
The Separation of Church and State Pt 3 (how we should treat people)
So, our nation was not founded as a Christian nation. And if I've done my job correctly, then you can see why these protections are not an attack on your religion, but exist for the good of all religions and all people.
So, with this knowledge, how does this affect the way you treat other people -- especially the way you treat people who are different from you, or hold differing beliefs?
Well, remember what I said about thinking about what the world would be like if the shoe were on the other foot? Think about that, always. The next time you think, "Well, yeah, the country would be a better place if homosexuals couldn't marry," then ask yourself, "Well, how would I feel if they were the majority, and they told me that I couldn't marry the person that I love?"
If you think, "Maybe they should teach Creationism in science classes, alongside purely scientific theories." Then stop yourself for a moment and ask, "Well, what if they taught every religion's creation story as a scientific theory? What if they taught Greek Mythology as fact, instead of leaving that up to me, the parent? How would I feel about that? Would that blur the lines between science and faith? And would that be good for science OR faith?"
There are many examples of such questions - where religion steps into the public realm. And you should always ask yourself, how would this feel if I were the minority? How would I feel if someone were imposing their beliefs on me, and trying to force me to live or believe like they do? How would I feel if I couldn't pursue my most basic desires (like the desire to marry the person I love) because I have a differing religious opinion from the "norm" or the majority?
It would feel awful.
So, the lesson at the end of the day is: Don't do that to people. Don't put people in a position where you're imposing your beliefs on people.
Let people be free, like you like to be free.
So, with this knowledge, how does this affect the way you treat other people -- especially the way you treat people who are different from you, or hold differing beliefs?
Well, remember what I said about thinking about what the world would be like if the shoe were on the other foot? Think about that, always. The next time you think, "Well, yeah, the country would be a better place if homosexuals couldn't marry," then ask yourself, "Well, how would I feel if they were the majority, and they told me that I couldn't marry the person that I love?"
If you think, "Maybe they should teach Creationism in science classes, alongside purely scientific theories." Then stop yourself for a moment and ask, "Well, what if they taught every religion's creation story as a scientific theory? What if they taught Greek Mythology as fact, instead of leaving that up to me, the parent? How would I feel about that? Would that blur the lines between science and faith? And would that be good for science OR faith?"
There are many examples of such questions - where religion steps into the public realm. And you should always ask yourself, how would this feel if I were the minority? How would I feel if someone were imposing their beliefs on me, and trying to force me to live or believe like they do? How would I feel if I couldn't pursue my most basic desires (like the desire to marry the person I love) because I have a differing religious opinion from the "norm" or the majority?
It would feel awful.
So, the lesson at the end of the day is: Don't do that to people. Don't put people in a position where you're imposing your beliefs on people.
Let people be free, like you like to be free.
The Separation of Church and State Pt 2 (why it's good we're not a Christian nation)
Now many Christians see the "Separation of Church and State" as an attack on Christianity itself. And there have been a great many crusades to "take our country back," "get God back in our schools," etc. The wording is different, but the sentiment is the same. "This is a Christian nation. If we don't run it as a Christian nation, then God will leave us and go somewhere else."
I want to talk for a minute about why the separation of church and state is not an attack on Christianity (or any religion), but rather a safeguard FOR Christianity.
One of my favorite things to do when thinking about politics is to think about what things would be like if "the shoe were on the other foot." For Christianity, I take this to mean, "What would the country look like if Christianity were not the majority."
With the separation of church and state, it wouldn't look much different.
Without the separation of church and state, it would be dire news for many religions.
Let's think this through. Many Christians think the world would be a better place if the 10 commandments were displayed in government buildings. If the book of Genesis were taught in science classrooms. If Children were lead in prayer in school. If the bible were followed in lawmaking (leading to the outlawing of gay marriage, for example.)
But, if this were the norm - if the majority religion were able to make laws and educate our children in their religion in public schools - then what would happen if a different religion became the majority?
How would you feel if writings of the Qur'an were posted in public buildings? What if laws of the Qur'an were public laws. What if women, by law, had to wear burkas covering from head to toe? What if women couldn't leave the house without a male relative?
Or what if it wasn't Islam? What if Jewish orthodox law prevailed? What if we couldn't work on the Sabbath? Or we couldn't eat food that wasn't kosher?
As you're reading some of these randomly chosen examples, you're probably thinking, "Well, that's not American. We're free! I like being able to wear what I want, do what I want, eat what I want. I like that women are treated as equals in my country." Etc., etc., etc.
This is why we need to preserve the separation of church and state. Because it protects ALL of our freedom. It protects the Christian's freedom as well as the Muslim's or the Jew's or the Buddhist's or the atheist's.
My point is that you wouldn't like having your religious freedom taken away. You wouldn't like being forced to practice someone else's religion. So, why do you think it's right to do that to someone else?
So, hopefully you get my point about why religious freedom is valuable to our society. Stay tuned for my next post on how this should affect how we treat other people.
I want to talk for a minute about why the separation of church and state is not an attack on Christianity (or any religion), but rather a safeguard FOR Christianity.
One of my favorite things to do when thinking about politics is to think about what things would be like if "the shoe were on the other foot." For Christianity, I take this to mean, "What would the country look like if Christianity were not the majority."
With the separation of church and state, it wouldn't look much different.
Without the separation of church and state, it would be dire news for many religions.
Let's think this through. Many Christians think the world would be a better place if the 10 commandments were displayed in government buildings. If the book of Genesis were taught in science classrooms. If Children were lead in prayer in school. If the bible were followed in lawmaking (leading to the outlawing of gay marriage, for example.)
But, if this were the norm - if the majority religion were able to make laws and educate our children in their religion in public schools - then what would happen if a different religion became the majority?
How would you feel if writings of the Qur'an were posted in public buildings? What if laws of the Qur'an were public laws. What if women, by law, had to wear burkas covering from head to toe? What if women couldn't leave the house without a male relative?
Or what if it wasn't Islam? What if Jewish orthodox law prevailed? What if we couldn't work on the Sabbath? Or we couldn't eat food that wasn't kosher?
As you're reading some of these randomly chosen examples, you're probably thinking, "Well, that's not American. We're free! I like being able to wear what I want, do what I want, eat what I want. I like that women are treated as equals in my country." Etc., etc., etc.
This is why we need to preserve the separation of church and state. Because it protects ALL of our freedom. It protects the Christian's freedom as well as the Muslim's or the Jew's or the Buddhist's or the atheist's.
My point is that you wouldn't like having your religious freedom taken away. You wouldn't like being forced to practice someone else's religion. So, why do you think it's right to do that to someone else?
So, hopefully you get my point about why religious freedom is valuable to our society. Stay tuned for my next post on how this should affect how we treat other people.
The Separation of Church and State Pt 1 (why we're not a Christian nation)
In discussions with various people, in interviews I've seen, in various bits of political commentary, I have heard murmurings that I've found troubling - and you should, too. Things like:
"We need to get back to being a Christian nation"
"We don't need a separation of church and state"
"It says 'One nation under God' on our money, and if you don't like it, you can get out."
"It's 'one nation under God,' not 'one nation under Allah.'"
I think you get the picture. And if you've thought this through, you're already shocked like I was. If you're on the side that thinks we are a Christian nation, please lend me an objective mind for a few moments.
Is this nation a "Christian nation?"
This nation was founded with the ideal of freedom. And among those many glorious freedoms guaranteed by the constitution is included the freedom of religion. That states that you, like everyone in this country, are free to practice whatever religion or lack thereof that you see fit. It is left up to you, the individual, and is not to be determined by the government, or even the majority.
This was written into the constitution, in the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Does this sound different from us being a "Christian" nation? Yes. That's because we're not a Christian nation.
But weren't the founding fathers all Christians?
Nope. In fact, I could point out many quotations from founding fathers that have quite scathing reviews of Christianity. For example:
"Lighthouses are more useful than churches" Benjamin Franklin
"This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in
it" John Adams
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" Thomas
Jefferson
Do I need to continue? I can.
In fact, Jefferson wrote a book called "The life and moral teachings of Jesus of Nazareth" that removed all the miracles and claims of divinity from the the gospels - things that he saw as unnecessary - and left just the moral teachings.
Clearly, these men were not all Christians. Clearly, by what they included in the constitution, they did not mean this nation to be a "Christian nation," but one where people were free to believe whatever they liked. If you'd like to further debate this, please leave your comment below. In my next posts I will discuss:
2) Why it's good for you that we have the separation of church and state
3) How this knowledge affects how we should treat each other.
"We need to get back to being a Christian nation"
"We don't need a separation of church and state"
"It says 'One nation under God' on our money, and if you don't like it, you can get out."
"It's 'one nation under God,' not 'one nation under Allah.'"
I think you get the picture. And if you've thought this through, you're already shocked like I was. If you're on the side that thinks we are a Christian nation, please lend me an objective mind for a few moments.
Is this nation a "Christian nation?"
This nation was founded with the ideal of freedom. And among those many glorious freedoms guaranteed by the constitution is included the freedom of religion. That states that you, like everyone in this country, are free to practice whatever religion or lack thereof that you see fit. It is left up to you, the individual, and is not to be determined by the government, or even the majority.
This was written into the constitution, in the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Does this sound different from us being a "Christian" nation? Yes. That's because we're not a Christian nation.
But weren't the founding fathers all Christians?
Nope. In fact, I could point out many quotations from founding fathers that have quite scathing reviews of Christianity. For example:
"Lighthouses are more useful than churches" Benjamin Franklin
"This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in
it" John Adams
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" Thomas
Jefferson
Do I need to continue? I can.
In fact, Jefferson wrote a book called "The life and moral teachings of Jesus of Nazareth" that removed all the miracles and claims of divinity from the the gospels - things that he saw as unnecessary - and left just the moral teachings.
Clearly, these men were not all Christians. Clearly, by what they included in the constitution, they did not mean this nation to be a "Christian nation," but one where people were free to believe whatever they liked. If you'd like to further debate this, please leave your comment below. In my next posts I will discuss:
2) Why it's good for you that we have the separation of church and state
3) How this knowledge affects how we should treat each other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)