The Compassionate Faith of Hitleroonism

[madnak]

This is a hypothetical question drawing on the Christian bashing thread.

Assume, 200 years from now, there is a community of people who are essentially ideal. They all live lives full of love and peace, helping one another and living lives of purity and benevolence. Nobody would ever call these people bad, and everyone who meets them is struck with great affection for them.

The catch is that this group of people follows a religion that heralds Mein Kampf as the word of God and Hitler as the messiah. According to their interpretation of Hitler's work and actions, he was a peaceful man with a loving message. They claim that only through the grace of Hitler's benevolence are they such kind, caring people. They call themselves the Born Again Nazis.

Now, the followers of Hitler are all good people, the accepted interpretation of Hitler's work is 100% peaceful and benevolent, and the social effect of Hitler's work appears to be positive.

Under these conditions, is it rude or unacceptable to criticize Hitler and Mein Kampf? Is it insulting to the good, peaceful Nazis to imply that Hitler is a villain? If so, why? Taraz, I'm looking at you in particular.

(I'm using Hitler here because I assume we can all agree he's a tyrant.)

[CallMeIshmael]

v nice

[einbert]

If you lived in this hypothetical fairy tale, what would you do? Would you devote your energies to dethroning the villainous philosophy that just happens to be accepted by a near-perfect humanity?
You could say that it would be right to do so. But is it worth any effort whatsoever to try to inflict a change on an idealized population? Of course not.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

You could say that it would be right to do so. But is it worth any effort whatsoever to try to inflict a change on an idealized population? Of course not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the question was, 'Is it rude, unacceptable or insulting?'
"Is it worth the effort" is not related to any of those, at least I can't make a connection ... clarify? ( oh, and it was you that added the 'idealized' characterization, if that matters).
I think it is worth the effort just because of the nature of our view of truth. If your spouse is a secret bigamist but your marriage seems wonderful most people would still want to know. Surprisingly, a fair number of them place a high value on not 'living in a lie' even though it's a pleasant enough one. There is an evolutionary advantage to wanting to know the truth it would seems, so we're stuck with it.

I don't see how it can be anything but ok, perhaps even obligatory, nice people don't like lies.

thanks, luckyme

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
You could say that it would be right to do so. But is it worth any effort whatsoever to try to inflict a change on an idealized population? Of course not.


[/ QUOTE ]


I think the operative word is "inflict". And I'd agree that you can't "inflict" change, but I believe you can "create" change. In the context of your statement the difference between inflict and create, would be that the latter is a positive while the former is a negative. Negative, "anti" positions never work in developing change unless they correspond with a positive or "pro" something position.

At one time there was a great deal more racial inequality in the U.S. and a corresponding anti-racial position. But the movement that created the change was a positive i.e. a pro-equality movement. The same with the American Revolution, "anti" Monarchy sentiment married with a "pro" democracy movement. Even the fundamentalists understand this: they're anti-abortion, but the movement is pro-life.

I believe change can happen, even against an idealized population. But not through an "anti" anything. It's the associated positive or "pro" movement that makes anything resembling positive change occur.

[Friedrich888]

I would not go out of my way to interfere with those people but I would not join them either.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a hypothetical question drawing on the Christian bashing thread.

Assume, 200 years from now, there is a community of people who are essentially ideal. They all live lives full of love and peace, helping one another and living lives of purity and benevolence. Nobody would ever call these people bad, and everyone who meets them is struck with great affection for them.

The catch is that this group of people follows a religion that heralds Mein Kampf as the word of God and Hitler as the messiah. According to their interpretation of Hitler's work and actions, he was a peaceful man with a loving message. They claim that only through the grace of Hitler's benevolence are they such kind, caring people. They call themselves the Born Again Nazis.

Now, the followers of Hitler are all good people, the accepted interpretation of Hitler's work is 100% peaceful and benevolent, and the social effect of Hitler's work appears to be positive.

Under these conditions, is it rude or unacceptable to criticize Hitler and Mein Kampf? Is it insulting to the good, peaceful Nazis to imply that Hitler is a villain? If so, why? Taraz, I'm looking at you in particular.

(I'm using Hitler here because I assume we can all agree he's a tyrant.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I cant see how anyone could make a case that it was rude, insulting or whatever.

What they may claim though is that the current comments directed at religion are not "Hitler was a bad man" type but rather "People who follow Mein Kampf are bad". I think the second would be insulting (and wrong).

[einbert]

My point is that some things are more important than being right.

[bunny]

I understand although I confess I am not making myself clear at all of late.

My point was intended to be that the analogy breaks down. With hitleroonism the hitler-attacker and the strangely-interpretive-hitler-follower both agree he exists. They disagree on his motives and character(presumably).

In the atheist attacking christianity, they disagree on the authorship. So the atheist is NOT saying "your religion is fine, but you are misinterpreting the words of what is actually an evil being, however well intentioned you may be". Rather they are taking the view that the only source of the religion is the religious people themselves. Thus, an attack on the religious beliefs doesnt have the third person element that the attack on hitler does.

Having said that, I personally dont find it insulting to attack people's beliefs, nor to label a belief stupid. However, I do think it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that if you hold a stupid belief, you must be stupid - this is not correct as you may be misinformed, alternatively it may just be a blind spot in an otherwise impeccably rational mind.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand although I confess I am not making myself clear at all of late.

My point was intended to be that the analogy breaks down. With hitleroonism the hitler-attacker and the strangely-interpretive-hitler-follower both agree he exists. They disagree on his motives and character(presumably).

In the atheist attacking christianity, they disagree on the authorship. So the atheist is NOT saying "your religion is fine, but you are misinterpreting the words of what is actually an evil being, however well intentioned you may be". Rather they are taking the view that the only source of the religion is the religious people themselves. Thus, an attack on the religious beliefs doesnt have the third person element that the attack on hitler does.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree. It's true there's no clear source of blame, like Hitler. But at the same time, modern Christians are no more responsible for the Bible than my Hitleroons are for the concentration camps. There is a third person, it's just hard to clarify - partially the writers of the gospels, partially Roman Catholicism, partially the ancient Hebrews, and maybe Jesus himself (if he existed and fit the image of him described in the New Testament).

[ QUOTE ]
Having said that, I personally dont find it insulting to attack people's beliefs, nor to label a belief stupid. However, I do think it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that if you hold a stupid belief, you must be stupid - this is not correct as you may be misinformed, alternatively it may just be a blind spot in an otherwise impeccably rational mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with that.