After what happened to Galileo (1564-1642), that claim surprises me.

“Galileo’s works were placed on the infamous index of prohibited books, and it was only in the mid 18th century that reprints were permitted. It wasn’t until 1835 that the church officially recognised that Galileo had been right. Yet Galileo himself was not exonerated.”
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/01/thought_for_the_pod_galileo_v.html

Galileo was eventually exonerated by the Church but not until in 1992.

We can only speculate as to what might have happened to Newton (1643-1727) and his scientific writings if Protestantism had not prevailed in England.

On the evidence, monotheism wasn’t a sufficient condition for unobstructed progress in science.

Oh well, looks like despite me twice responding line by line to _your_ comments, no matter how unsupportable, you have twice ignored my specific questions.

So time for me to to bail out, as monologues are not interesting debate.

Oh by the way:
> unlike other anti-Islamics I’ve encountered, you…

I don’t see myself as anti-Islamic: my role on LC seems to be to ring the alarm bell when people make unscientific claims that all religions are equally violent, or that Jesus and Mohammed are equally violent.

Or patronising and arrogant things like:
“No offence to the vast number of highly moral and righteous Islamic scholars, but I don’t put any more faith in their interpretations than…”

I’ll abrogate the snipped quote, because I think it’s important and yes, I am aware of the irony:

“. . .The People of the book [Jews, Christians and Sabeans] are a portion that stand (for the right). . .they are in the ranks of the righteous. Of the good that they do nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knoweth well those that do right.”

That’s not out of context; that’s chapter and verse saying that Jews and Christians are okay in Allah’s book. I’m sure there’s something similar in the Bible about being “judged in their own light” but I can’t put my finger on it at the moment.

The role of the Imam is a progressive one, equivalent to Church of England vicars. It doesn’t call for any direct ordination from a single line of papal succession (remember in the 8th century this was pretty radical – John Tyndall was still 800 years away). In Europe, priests and abbots were still fatted oligarchs selling indulgences. The Qu’ran states that no one has a greater claim to know the will of Allah than any other. No man can ever be holy, and that the Imams are there to offer support and nurture rather than enlightenment, which can only come through reading the Qu’ran for oneself.

No offence to the vast number of highly moral and righteous Islamic scholars, but I don’t put any more faith in their interpretations than I do in Matthew Hopkins putting witches to death, or the Pope blessing the blades of those who wanted to sack the Holy Land. The Qu’ran is a single text for the world, which is the last revealed word of Allah. Whatever Mohammed (pbuh) said afterwards was not dictated to him by the Angel Gabriel, so is nothing more than his own interpretation, arguably like the book of Psalms, which was lucky to squeak past the Nicean Council, if you ask me

As for my “tiresome claim about Old Testament comparisons,” I quoted chapter and verse. Obviously, the Qu’ran is lighter on the detail because it doesn’t claim or intend to be a history of the Jewish people, but Noah, Daniel, Joseph, Elijah, Lot, Abraham, Moses, they’re all in there. I implore you, actually take a look at the book itself – it won’t blow up in your face, it won’t turn you into a muslim, and you might come to understand the central text behind what a large section of the world believes.

Okay, early popes aren’t my field of expertise; I kick in post 1000AD, but what is clear is that the Church of Rome is inextricably linked with an Evangelical bent. When I made the point about Islam not being political, what I meant was that it doesn’t seek to convert, by the sword or otherwise. It has its own version of the Mosaic law, killing gays, sticking women in cupboards for their period of confinement (which actually makes sense if you’re in the desert with hungry lions smelling blood), not eating pork and covering the naughty bits, but it makes as little sense – again, returning to the book rather than its implementation in pre-reformation “Islamic” states – to implement these wholesale any more than it would be for Deuteronomy or Exodus to become statute.

The laws are detailed because Islam is designed to unify split states. I mean, look at the hassle that poor old Constantine had when trying to establish Christianity – this way, some punishments are more excessive and some probably more lenient. Victors in combat have a responsibility to look after widows and orphans by making them slaves, and to treat them well (c.f. Rome).

Let’s take homosexuality, then, which seems to be the pinch point.

“We also sent Lut [AKA Lot, as in Sodom and Gomorrah, as in Genesis, as in the Torah/Bible] : He said to his people : “Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.” Qur’an 7:80-81

“What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males, and leave the wives your Lord created for you? Nay, but ye are forward folk.” Qur’an 26:165

Wow, that’s pretty damning. Or rather, it isn’t, really, It’s just saying “ewww! You’re weird. You just need to find the right girl,” which isn’t entirely draconian. Especially when you compare it to:

Leviticus 18:22. “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

Yeah, not a lot of wiggle room there.

> Oh, I hate it when these things get all bullet pointy.

I hate it when I addressed everything you’d said, but you failed to return the courtesy.

>The only Islamic source that I take as Gospel (if you’ll pardon the pun) is the Qu’ran.

But the issue is not what YOU take as gospel, but what Islamic scholars and islamic norms use.

>“Qur’an 3:113-117 Surah Ale-’Imran (The Family of ‘Imran)
….long quote snipped.

I had asked you to quote me some Islamic sources on your claim: “as a matter of fact Islam says that being a Christian is a misguidance, rather than anything else, and you’ll probably still get into heaven on a technicality”

You then misused the Qur’an by cherry picking and doing your own DIY interpretation.

So again, you need to show some islamic scholars, leaders or etc to support your claim. If they legislate for it.

>but I say again, there’s nothing in the Qu’ran which is not in the Old Testament

This is tiresome – another ridiculuous claim.

> I look at it like this. God comes up with some rules for life. He beta tests them on the Jews, then, when he’s satisfied it’s relatively bug free, he sends Jesus down to launch it to the mass market. After a few years, though, people start to hack the code, so he sends out an update which has greater system integrity.

It’s your view I guess. Do you know if anyone shares it?

> The trouble is, because Islam was forged as a reactive religion in a historical age harkening back to the days of David and Solomon, and against the violent excesses of the Papacy,

What? Mohammed was exposed to what papal excesses in your view?
Another theory where I think you are on your own.

> Islam is not a political religion.

That’s the second time you’ve stated it.
Please, do some research – 10 seconds on wiki shows: “Islamic law covers all aspects of life, from matters of state, like governance and foreign relations, to issues of daily living. The Qur’an defines hudud as the punishments for five specific crimes: unlawful intercourse, false accusation of unlawful intercourse, consumption of alcohol, theft, and highway robbery. The Qur’an and Sunnah also contain laws of inheritance, marriage, and restitution for injuries and murder, as well as rules for fasting, charity, and prayer.”

> I think we’re IN the Islamic reformation at the moment

What makes you think so?

> The best thing we can do is not to demonise those individuals

Not much demonisation of individuals in this thread.

> but encourage them to liberalism and tolerance through example and gradual acceptance.

But getting back to Dave’s point at the top – say Homephobia in Islam – do you feel we should tolerate that intolerance?

The only Islamic source that I take as Gospel (if you’ll pardon the pun) is the Qu’ran.

“Qur’an 3:113-117 Surah Ale-’Imran (The Family of ‘Imran)
Not all of them are alike: of the People of the book are a portion that stand (for the right); they rehearse the signs of Allah all night long and then prostrate themselves in adoration.
They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong; and they (hasten in emulation) in (all) good works; they are in the ranks of the righteous.
Of the good that they do nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knoweth well those that do right.
Those who reject faith neither their possessions nor their (numerous) progeny will avail them aught against Allah; they will be companions of the fire dwelling therein (for ever).
What they spend in the life of this (material) world may be likened to a wind which brings a nipping frost: it strikes and destroys the harvest of men who have wronged their own souls; it is not Allah that hath wronged them but they wrong themselves.”

“And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.
Al-Qur’an, 005.046-47 (Al-Maeda [The Table, The Table Spread])”

The Quran likes to repeat itself, just to make sure. Well, if something’s travelling on leaves and tongue to ear, you like to make sure the important stuff travels.

So if you’re a good Christian, Allah says “well, his heart’s in the right place,” and you get spared the fire, which is nice.

Now, I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not a native English speaker, so I’ve only read the N J Dawood and the Yusuf Ali translations – I’m sure someone can point me to a potential translation which says something nasty, like not suffering a witch to live and all that – but I say again, there’s nothing in the Qu’ran which is not in the Old Testament; it’s like a Reader’s Digest version. Nur’s Ark, the torments of Job, poor old Sodom and Gomorrah, not worshipping idols, it’s all there. A lot of Christians like to have the penny and the bun – saying that

I look at it like this. God comes up with some rules for life. He beta tests them on the Jews, then, when he’s satisfied it’s relatively bug free, he sends Jesus down to launch it to the mass market. After a few years, though, people start to hack the code, so he sends out an update which has greater system integrity.

The trouble is, because Islam was forged as a reactive religion in a historical age harkening back to the days of David and Solomon, and against the violent excesses of the Papacy, it was always going to be a strong banner for the military minded to wave. It’s been easy to go back to the Scriptures and say “Well, the wholesale slaughter of Egyptians is just a metaphor”, but when that turns from a miracle into the very real fact of a man with a sword, immortalised in first person accounts and woodcuts, it comes a little harder to swallow.

Islam is not a political religion. What it has been is appropriated – like the Holy Roman Empire – for those who want to gain political power.

“To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;”
Al-Qur’an, 005.048 (Al-Maeda [The Table, The Table Spread])

The problem is, and I agree with those who say that there needs to be a Reformation, that the theocratic states are loathe to relinquish power. What were the causes for Christian reformation? Martin Luther hating Jews, Henry VIII wanting to divorce his wife, and above all a realisation that there had been decades of senseless death and violence in the Christian world.

I think we’re IN the Islamic reformation at the moment – it’s just feeling worse to us because – well, it’s happening to us.

The best thing we can do is not to demonise those individuals who are at the periphery of shaking off their culturally ingrained fundamentalist view, but encourage them to liberalism and tolerance through example and gradual acceptance.

Oh go on then, I’ll take the bait and chip into your ‘shock horror’ posting :Bloody hell, you step away for a birthday, and the world explodes.

Did anyone say anything so controversial – which bit exploded for you?

> Right, so the rules of engagement seem to be: Any previous practices are moot – .

Yes, well the thread did kick off with Dave’s questions about _todays_ concern over Muslim homophobia.
And this is a politics forum, where people one assumes are here to debate about making _todays_ world a better place

>So, basically, what’s being criticised is the success of political Islam
Err, I didn’t see anyone saying that?

> Despite the fact that Islam is by its nature apolitical.
Humm….
I’m wondering, Donut, if by any chance you’re a troll?

Because that is so left ball it’s out the stadium.
And your last post had equally proposterous statements:
“Mohammed did absolutely NOTHING that King David didn’t do”

>Jesus and Mohammed (pbuh) were mentioned as comparisons. Well, firstly, Isa the son of Mary gets much Kudos from the Qu’ran

Quite right, it speaks highly of Jesus as prophet. Even saying he did physical miracles, which Mohammed didn’t do. It does get some of the historicity of Jesus wrong though.

Of course the New Testament came 600 years before Mohammed, so not surprising their is no mention of him in it.

And the Qur’an although positive, is positive about a different Jesus to the one christianity would accept: it is very clear to point out that Jesus is absolutely not the son of god – which blows out arguably the most core tenet of christianity. (paints him instead as calling himself a muslim, if I recall right, which is also hard for common or garden historians to accept)

> Jesus also pissed off the Zealots and ….
He didn’t seem to get everybody on his side for sure…err, they killed him in the end you’ll recall.

> Now, I’m not going to hear a word said about Jesus
But you just did!

> if he existed as detailed in the Gospel, then he’s my best bud.

Depends what you mean by ‘best bud’ I guess.
I’m not sure the Gospels show his followers found it an easy or comfortable ride to be with him.
Certainly the persecution some suffered after his death…

So what do you mean he’s your best bud?

>However, shortly after his death (and potential resurrection) and probably as a reaction to Nero’s “special candle” parties, the whole turn the other cheek thing went haywire.

Ok, so you’ve moved off of ‘Jesus according to the NT’ to ‘the history of the church and it’s dodgy deeds’ theme.
Fair cop, there are dodgy deeds to be found – but it’s not rocket science to realise that christianity does not claim it’s adherents are automatically and by definition good followers of the man – (hey neither does atheism make a parallel claim).

>Mohammed (pbuh), in contrast, is not a holy man – he’s a man with a holy message.

That’s blasphemy to any of the Muslim sources I’ve ever read..

>That’s why the haditha are separated from the Qu’ran.
I’ve lost your thought process there, explain please?

>He’s not an exemplar whose example is a perfect revelation of how to live life.

He is in fact EXACTLY that in Islam.

You are conciously trolling aren’t you?

To historians and those outside Islam, of course, aspects of his life are questionable, but within Islam you get called an apostate if you talk like that, and the punishment for that is death….

>David spoke to God…snipped

Boring, you’re again digging into the past and doing DIY bible interpretation.
The internet is full of it. It’s a waste of everyone’s time.

If you want to dig into the bible, do so scientifically: start by ready what Christians do and and what they say, and read the Bible verses they quote as inspiration, and then ask all the tough, sceptical questions you like.

>Flawed people.

Yes. We agree again!
That’s at the heart of the christian message too most would say, so your interpretations maybe are are not so wide. “Original sin” is the scholars’ jargon.
That we are “all indeed flawed people” is the laymans’ understanding

>I know Westernised Muslims; I know North African muslims – lovely people

I’m sure you’re right.
But no one here is saying ‘its hard to find nice muslims’.
The thread started by saying that there is some unpleasantness (homophobia) in islam’s teachings and practise.
Not that all Muslims are homophobic, or not ‘lovely people’.

>as a matter of fact Islam says that being a Christian is a misguidance, rather than anything else, and you’ll probably still get into heaven on a technicality

That just proves it – you’re a troll!
You’ll need to show Islamic sources on that, because my research so far says it ain’t so.

(121) you posted at length, but overlooked to answer the questions I put to you after your last post.

(Happy birthday by the way!)

Q1) Do you think are there dfferent levels of violence committed by christians and muslims today.?
Look at the news this week, this month.

Q2) do you think muslim scholars and christian scholars advocate different things, in the area of violence? In what cases do the two groups advocate the death penalty for example?

Interesting that you say the “Protestant and non-conformist traditions in Christianity” are the reason plural democracies spring better from judeo-christian soil – as some of the individual politicians there have produced are also interesting reformers: like Wilberforce, one of my heroes.

You wrote:
“It is but a small personal step from polytheism to accepting a notion of rivalrous political parties, each with its own approved leader, all within a national constitution prescribing regular elections to decide which party runs the government until the next election.”

Humm. Moving away from politics to science – I read folks like John Lennox who argue that one of the reasons the scientific revolution happened in christian europe – was because of its monotheism – of a peculiar ’3 in 1′ trinity in peaceful unity.

The argument being that cultures with a belief in many gods who argue arbitrarily among themselves, and who intervene in the affairs of man arbitrarily -lack the christian world view that says the world is ordered and consistent, and therefore a serious study of it will make sense, and is repeatable.

You mention Greece, and maybe their petty, infighting gods maybe prececluded some of the earliest ‘scientists’ taking things further.

As indeed their democracy was a model of sorts but with little sense of ‘equality of man’ at it’s core: as their worldwide did not find it at all strange or undesirable that at a ‘whim of the gods’ you were born and stuck thereafter as slave, or women, or leader.

Right, so the rules of engagement seem to be: Any previous practices are moot – so no-one’s allowed to mention the war-time actions of the Caliphate and Muhammed Ali (or even the peaceful occupation of Andalusia) and I won’t mention the invasion of the Holy Land and the Papal Decree to send warriors through the Jewish Ghettoes to “warm up your blades”

So, basically, what’s being criticised is the success of political Islam; despite the fact that Islam is by its nature apolitical. Let’s remember that at the time of the 7th century, people were being burned alive in Europe for not attending church, so it’s not really fair to compare the two periods.

Jesus and Mohammed (pbuh) were mentioned as comparisons. Well, firstly, Isa the son of Mary gets much Kudos from the Qu’ran – he’s one of the sacred rasul and it talks of the gospel as a book “in which there is much light,”

Jesus also pissed off the Zealots and Harvey Kei – er, Judas Iscariot who thought he was going to be a kick ass ninja. Now, I’m not going to hear a word said about Jesus – if he existed as detailed in the Gospel, then he’s my best bud. However, shortly after his death (and potential resurrection) and probably as a reaction to Nero’s “special candle” parties, the whole turn the other cheek thing went haywire.

Mohammed (pbuh), in contrast, is not a holy man – he’s a man with a holy message. That’s why the haditha are separated from the Qu’ran. He’s not an exemplar whose example is a perfect revelation of how to live life. David spoke to God, and then got Caleb killed so he could knob Bathsheba. He also cut off the foreskins of 1,000 philistines, which is freaking awesome. Noah spoke to God and then ended up knobbing his daughters whilst pissed. Lot spoke to God and then offered to throw his daughters to get raped so that the mob didn’t pick on the angels. Flawed people. People. Not demi-Gods, like Jesus, or Hercules.

I know Westernised Muslims; I know North African muslims – lovely people, not plotting the destruction of all who venerate the son of Mary at all; as a matter of fact Islam says that being a Christian is a misguidance, rather than anything else, and you’ll probably still get into heaven on a technicality – a far cry from the isolational purity of Christianity (or even Judaism, thinking on it.) So the problem isn’t there.

The whole image thing is supposed to apply to ANYTHING – it basically says “Look at those stupid Christians venerating statues and huge golden boxes; what a waste of money and praise. You want to find God? Look up.” However, as we’re seeing now with the CofE, when religion gets squeezed, it becomes reactionary, and eventually a cultural taboo. In the September Dawn massacre, the Mormons killed a woman for wearing trousers (it might have been more complicated than that, thinking about it.)

Bob – ask your Hindu friends about Sati, or even the Varna system, if we’re talking about tolerance. I’m sure you can find a couple of enclaves in the subcontinent where it’s still practised.

Multiculturalism? I was playing Guitar Hero in a Moroccan Jilabah last night.

The Protestant and non-conformist traditions in Christianity along with sects that emphasied personal relationships with the deity without the mediation of a phalanx of approved saints or the established church authorities.

“Not clear on your point here, are you saying ‘co-existence of rival deities’ [in polytheistic religions] is a desirable belief? In what sense?]

Hindu polytheism encourages a belief that the continuing more-or-less peaceful coexistence of rival deities is the natural order. Recall that polytheistic religions prevailed in Greece in classical times – supposedly the original font of the idea of democratic forms of government.

It is but a small personal step from polytheism to accepting a notion of rivalrous political parties, each with its own approved leader, all within a national constitution prescribing regular elections to decide which party runs the government until the next election.

That is a marked contrast with theocratic religions in which the institutions and means of governance require the prior sanction of, and instruction by, the dominant religious authorities – as with the medieval Christian church before the Reformation and the jihadist Islamic sects.

My Indian friend forecast that Islamic countries would find in verging on impossible to make a transition to democratic forms of government. How prescient that was. Neither he nor I were especially religious, which perhaps partly explains our amity, and remember our lunchtime chats were more than 30 years ago. Meanwhile, in India, governments have come and gone with regular elections. At least with governments by the Congress Party, some ministerial posts are held by Muslims and Sikhs and few regard that as out of order.

Have Pakistan governments ever included Hindus or Sikhs as ministers? The very question appears ridiculous.

116

> The answer has to be Christianity, to its credit.

Is a clear answer to your question “which of the three religions has turned out to be the most tolerant of ideological diversity and the most compatible with democratic forms of governance.”

Have you any views as to the roots of this difference?

>polytheism encourages a belief in the possibility of the co-existence of rival deities in a way that monotheism does not.

Not clear on your point here, are you saying ‘co-existence of rival deities’ is a desirable belief?
In what sense?

Thanks.

> I’m hard pressed to justify in terms of evidence any fine distinctions between the peaceful inclinations of the three Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

You use the word ‘inclination’ which we’ve not used in the thread so far.

Going back to the terms we have been using, and looking at the world today, what differences between the 3 religions do you see:

- in terms of the violence they promote
- in the level of violence committed by their proponents who explicitly name their religion in their reasoning?”

112
> This source documents extensively Hitler’s personal claims to religious influences from his own writings and speeches:
http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

Humm, I took a quick look at that site, and was not comfortable that it was any kind of sensible source.

It all seems to be written or complied by a Jim Walker – who is he? the site gives no easy way to find out – no ‘About Us’ page.

I also read a sample of pages and found them at best bizarre.
Some bits even suggest Jim admits to a mental disorder, eg:
“…due to veiled threats I had received from religious zealots, some of my fears which, no doubt, came from my own paranoia…”

Apologies if I’m being tough on Jim, but I’m basing my view just on what I read on the site.

I read “Death and Time Traveling” – totally whacky pseudo science.
and try ‘The problems with beliefs’ if you want some silly semantics.

and “The Dark Bible” – which seems to be classic bit of DIY bible interpretation by someone who ignores christianity’s own scholars and specialists and creates their own interpretation starting from a totally non-scientific basis….

Nobelief says: “The inspiration of the Dark Bible … for the purpose of finding relevant passages that dealt with the wrath, scatological, and dubious moral teachings of God in the Bible”

Ie, he started his ‘research’ with his conclusion in hand! 100% unscientific!

But Bob even if you personally DID find Nobeliefs.com a valid source, it says this – which I wonder whether you would agree with:

>At no time do I condone or authorize the use of the Dark Bible to support another religion like Islam (which has even worse dark verses in its Quran. See the Skeptic’s Annotated Quran).

I’m hard pressed to justify in terms of evidence any fine distinctions between the peaceful inclinations of the three Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions

All three have very bloody histories of aggression.

Perhaps more interesting questions concern which of the three religions has turned out to be the most tolerant of ideological diversity and the most compatible with democratic forms of governance. The answer has to be Christianity, to its credit. But then Hinduism has also been tolerant of diversity and as an ethnic Indian colleague observed in many relaxed discussions we used to have over 30 years back, polytheism encourages a belief in the possibility of the co-existence of rival deities in a way that monotheism does not.

> The speculation was not that the influence of the school in Austria which Hitler attended that made him antisemitic but the effect on him of encountering Wittengenstein at the school which both attended.

But… that is the exact same book I referenced …. and as I said above, that book ‘suggests that Hitler may have started to hate Jews because of his dislike of a jew at school who was in fact Witgenstein’

So, if I understand your angle (not sure I do?) – you disagree that Hitler’s anti-semitism was picked up from the catholic church.

(drat…the Edit feature has disappeared again….)

> No, I don’t believe all religions are the same in terms of the violence they promote or condone

Thaks for that clarification.

> I was clear in saying that Buddhism, the Confucian ethic and Gandhi were not promoting violence IMO.

Yes that’s clear.
Do you have a view on the other religions?

No, I don’t believe all religions are the same in terms of the violence they promote or condone and I don’t believe that the influence of religion is necessarily made explicit by countries, political parties or groups which promote violence.

I was clear in saying that Buddhism, the Confucian ethic and Gandhi were not promoting violence IMO.

@109: “Who has speculated that the school was an anti-semitic influence? I’d be interested to read any URL of sources.”

The speculation was not that the influence of the school in Austria which Hitler attended that made him antisemitic but the effect on him of encountering Wittengenstein at the school which both attended. The book in which this thesis is developed is: The Jew of Linz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jew_of_Linz

This source documents extensively Hitler’s personal claims to religious influences from his own writings and speeches:
http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

On Hitler, I just read:

“Hitler’s world view was diametrically opposed to Christianity, for which Hitler had nothing but contempt. Hitler never attended church in Vienna, and some sources note that his greatest enemy–besides Marxists–was the Jesuits. One anonymous eyewitness reported that “Hitler said [c. 1912] the biggest evil for the German people was accepting Christian humility.” (p. 250)

by Richard Weikart, Professor of History, California State Univ.,

No idea whether Weikart is mainstream or not among today’s historians on Hitler.

>As for early antisemitic influences on Hitler, some have speculated that his antisemitic sentiments developed as the result of attending the same school in Austria as Wittgenstein, who went on to become an internationally celebrated philosopher.

Who has speculated that the school was an anti-semitic influence? I’d be interested to read any URL of sources.

You then mention that Witgenstein went to the same school.

He was a philiosopher/mathematician – not a christian scholar or christian leader… so not sure the relevance?

And Amazon sells a book that suggests that Hitler may have started to hate Jews because of his dislike of a jew at school who was in fact Witgenstein….

So sorry, but I don’t follow your Wittgenstein angle.

>As for Hitler’s influence in promoting antisemitism, compare the fundamental programme of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP), as published in 1920 and endorsed by the Fuhrer and never amended thereafter:

Err, sorry, but I don’t understand the relevance of this either – no one had said that Hitler had not been an influence on promoting anti-semitism…

I asked specifically for _your view_ on something, and you wrote:

(106) >The question is logically impossible since there are potentially an infinite number of cases relating to any religion and I cannot consider all to evaluate whether any particular religion is more culpable than the others regarding its history of promoting violence.

Such a fudge answer… ‘logically impossible’ – ?
I’infinite number of cases?…..

I only asked for _your view__ – not a 100% worldwide assessment !!

So to be consistent, if asked the exact same question, but swapping ‘religions’ by ‘political movements’ , your answer would be the same non-answer!

I don’t think so!

So please, try again – don’t worry about covering infinite possibiities… just tell us, with the caveat that your research has been limited, whether: “you believe all religions are the same in terms of the violence they promote, and the level of violence committed by their proponents who explicitly name their religion in their reasoning?”

Wittengenstein “was educated by private tutors at home; after that, he began three years of schooling at the Realschule in Linz, a school emphasizing technical topics. For one school year, Adolf Hitler, who was born a mere six days before Wittgenstein, was a student there, but two grades below.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein

As for Hitler’s influence in promoting antisemitism, compare the fundamental programme of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP), as published in 1920 and endorsed by the Fuhrer and never amended thereafter:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/nsdappro.htm

The question is logically impossible since there are potentially an infinite number of cases relating to any religion and I cannot consider all to evaluate whether any particular religion is more culpable than the others regarding its history of promoting violence.

Some religions – like Buddhism – have made a central theme in their fundamental doctrines of promoting “peace”, which might help to explain why Buddhism was supplanted by Islam in parts of China where Buddhism was previously deeply rooted – see:
The Silk Road 03 The Art Gallery in the Desert
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8766403308994751293

Try this speech by Gandhi during WW2:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1942/420807a.html

George Bernard Shaw provides us with an illuminating insight into the fundamentally authoritarian character of Christian doctrine:

“Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same.”

Lee Kwan Yew, prime minister of Singapore until 1990, famously attributed its success story to the ascendancy there of Confucian values, which he characterised as: Do not do to others what you would not like to be done unto to you.

I greatly prefer the Confucian ethic to the Christian.

Supposedly Christian states have been embroiled in the bloodiest wars in history even before the 20th century. Nowadays, we are very properly concerned about the scale and care of battlefield casualties among our troops but I suspect we incline to forget or under-rate the slaughter in those historic battles of the Napoleonic wars two centuries ago and that is a mistake. The combined casualty rate on both sides at Waterloo in June 1815 exceeded an average of 6,000 an hour:
http://www.napoleonic-literature.com/WE/Casualties.html