The infallible Pope asks a question

[Anti_Hypeman]

God hardened Hitlers heart.

 

[Admiral]

Hey, look, they split the thread into AAH. Good riddance.

 

[rocketdodger]

I cannot believe that you would insult the victims of the holocaust by implying that if they had wanted to live, they could have, or that their religion placated them so that they didn't mind being massacred.

First of all, the term insult implies some kind of purposeful degredation, and that is not my intent at all, I am simply stating facts.

Did I state that they could have lived if they wanted? No. I am simply making the claim that they did not fight to the death.

I am also making the claim that religion can both incite and placate people. A few people can be driven to become zealous human weapons by religion, but many many more are usually placated into having "faith" that death isn't as bad as it at first seems.

In such a case -- either face a gas chamber and certain quick death or a tough fight with likely death afterwards -- I would believe that 1) their religion or 2) their cowardice resulted in choosing the first option. Since I don't like to call people cowards, I will blame their religion.

You can try to defend religion all you want, but the fact is that historically it is the religious who are much more willing to die.

 

[Elind]

The pope is infallble only when he speacs ex cathedra, which, IIRC, has only happened twice, and it's a relatively recent invention, mid 1800's.

As has already been mentioned, the point was not that he spoke infallibly, just stupidly or strangely.

How can he ask his god, in what seems to me an accusational tone, why something was allowed to happen when he would presumably already know the answer if he communicates with that god? Did he just happen to think of that question now?

 

[Elind]

You can try to defend religion all you want, but the fact is that historically it is the religious who are much more willing to die.

I do think that in this case you are off base. There are countless examples in history of people becoming submissively beaten down to where they do not resist any longer. Either because they still hope, or because they don't care.

I don't think in that regard you can point to religion as a distinguishing factor, and I doubt that any group of atheists in the same circumstances, and those leading up to the end, would have acted differently. What's more I would venture a guess that a substantial proportion of those people would have been atheists at heart by the time they met their terrible end.

 

[Elind]

Hey, look, they split the thread into AAH. Good riddance.

My you are observant, but I was kind of enjoying the side plot. Oh well....

 

[blutoski]

The pope is infallble only when he speacs ex cathedra, which, IIRC, has only happened twice, and it's a relatively recent invention, mid 1800's.

Nope. It means that anything the Church decides will be reconciled in heaven, because it's the best representation of Jesus' will on earth. Ecumenical councils also produce infallible pronouncements.

From the Vatican's online description of infallibility:

... the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true.

Wikipedia concurs, for what it's worth. This is also consistent with my training as a Catholic.

There is no complete list of 'instances' of papal infallibility.

The Vatican claims it's an ancient tradition, but, these days, they say that about everything that makes the Pope look important.

 

[rocketdodger]

I do think that in this case you are off base. There are countless examples in history of people becoming submissively beaten down to where they do not resist any longer. Either because they still hope, or because they don't care.

Yeah perhaps I misspoke. Especially since the modern day Israeli Jews are such pistols.

I still stand by my claim that those killed in the holocaust went without a fight, though.

 

[Admiral]

I still stand by my claim that those killed in the holocaust went without a fight, though.

The vast majority of Jews almost certainly didn't know that they were about to be killed. Why? Because such a thought is almost impossible. Believing that the government was rounding people up into camps and systematically killing them is just not something that people were willing to accept without evidence.

Consider that these people (these aren't soldiers or heroes- these are ordinary people in an extremely unfamiliar situation) were facing certain death from Nazi machine guns if they rebelled. The Nazis ensured that the prisoners feared them by executing individuals who showed any kind of dissent. Their only reason to rebel was unconfirmed rumors and suspicions- I believe that most victims probably lived with the hope that if they cooperated, they would somehow get through with their family. (And there are far more stories of people who cooperated and survived than people who rebelled and survived.)

And I have a response to the comment that most prisoners probably stopped believing in God when they were in the concentration camps. I think this is almost certainly untrue. I think it's based on the notion that no one could believe God when they endure great hardship and oppression. I think you don't really understand Judaism.

(By the way, I understand that not all victims of the Holocaust were Jewish, and that gypsies and homosexuals underwent similar persecution. I'm speaking about the Jewish vicitims.)

I'm not Jewish, though most people I know are, including my girlfriend of two years. I've learned that Judaism isn't about asking God for things you want, and getting them if you're good enough. The history of Judaism is characterized by difficulties, filled with persecution, discrimination and distrust. Look at the tradition of Passover- Jews celebrate by remembering the hardships that their ancestors went through in Egypt. Jews are historically traditional and hard-working, and wouldn't ask God to help them through hardship.

In short, if Jews renounced their faith because of atrocities committed against the Jewish people, there wouldn't be a single one left on the planet.

ETA- There's one other factor that makes me doubt most victims were "atheists at heart." Traditionally, people don't turn away from religion in the face of great danger, they turn towards it. Why? Because people gain strength by believing in something greater than themselves.

And before you call the victims irrational for these views, try and imagine being in their situation. You've been seized and transported to an unfamiliar and threatening place, several of your family members are gone and are probably dead, and you're being ordered around by soldiers and are given unsubstantial food and shelter. I don't think we should even be allowed to comment on their psychology, because there probably no way for most of us to imagine the kind of emotions they were feeling.

 

[David Swidler]

Yeah perhaps I misspoke. Especially since the modern day Israeli Jews are such pistols.

Why, thank you. You flatter me.

Except that I've never served in the army (in fact a good 40% of Israelis are exempt from the draft, but that doesn't describe me. Or didn't, back when it was relevant).

Your simplistic view of Israelis is not just insulting; it's horribly wrong.

I still stand by my claim that those killed in the holocaust went without a fight, though.

Then you might want to google the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, the Treblinka revolt, "Escape from Sobibor," Jewish partisan activity and countless other examples of Jewish resistance to the Nazis and their collaborators.

WWII was not an era of global communication. Only after the war did large numbers of people outside the SS understand the scope of the Holocaust. Until then, despite the constant stream of rumors, no one wanted to believe the worst - who could conceive that humans - Germans, no less, who represented the pinnacle of refined culture, of Hesse, Beethoven, Bach - could perpetrate such a crime?

You would have been no different in their shoes. Even Poles, who suffered terribly under Nazi occupation, didn't revolt until it was clear the Germans were losing. And they weren't starved and worked to death systematically.

 

[rocketdodger]

Your simplistic view of Israelis is not just insulting; it's horribly wrong.

ORLLY? Then can you please explain how Israel has managed to survive 50 years of being surrounded by enemies that want to see it completely destroyed, if not for the fact that the people living there are more ready to fight for themselves?

I have honestly never heard a jew complain about someone complimenting Israelis for their vigilance. Maybe you thought I was being sarcastic...

You would have been no different in their shoes. Even Poles, who suffered terribly under Nazi occupation, didn't revolt until it was clear the Germans were losing. And they weren't starved and worked to death systematically.

I do not claim that I would be different! But, if it did happen to me, looking down from heaven, if I saw somebody bringing up the fact that I didn't fight for my life, I would have to agree with them. Do you dispute this?

I think you are inserting emotion and blame where there isn't -- I am not blaming holocaust victims for their deaths, and I am not insulting them. I am simply stating a fact.

I also think that the passengers on the two flights that hit the twin towers didn't fight back. Am I condemning them? Of course not, they had no idea of what was going on and if they did I am sure they would have fought to the death. But they didn't, and that is a simple fact.

I do, however, think that things like this all across history point to a general trend in human behavior -- if you let someone push you around, it will probably lead to worse things than you originally calculated. Therefore it is my stance that nobody should ever let anyone push them around, even a little.

 

[Admiral]

Therefore it is my stance that nobody should ever let anyone push them around, even a little.

Actually, it was originally your stance that if the victims hadn't believed in God, they wouldn't have gone so quietly.

Hey, David Swidler. (BTW, I agree with your points.) Since you're Jewish, you probably understand Jewish culture, belief and history considerably better than I do. It was my impression that Jews placed little or no emphasis on the afterlife, and wouldn't peacefully die just because they thought there was eternity awaiting. Does that seem right to you?

I have to remind rocketdodger that even if some victims were resigned to death, it wouldn't be because of their religion- it would be because their spirit had been so thoroughly broken by the loss of loved ones, everything they had, etc.

Now, it isn't my position that religion has never affected people in this way. I think the crusades involved many people risking their lives because they thought if they died in battle, they would be honored in heaven. (It also contained many knights that wanted to loot and pillage, for whom the crusades were not a holy war but a road trip. Not the point.) Also, terrorists who are willing to blow themselves up to kill Americans certainly believed that they would be rewarded in Paradise.

However, I don't like the implication that religion teaches people a message of "Be passive and cooperative, because even if you die you'll just be in heaven."

 

[rocketdodger]

Actually, it was originally your stance that if the victims hadn't believed in God, they wouldn't have gone so quietly.

Yes, this was my original stance and I stick to it. I simply came upon another stance, which is probably much more agreeable to everyone so I put that out there as well .

However, I don't like the implication that religion teaches people a message of "Be passive and cooperative, because even if you die you'll just be in heaven."

I would remind you that the very essence of all theistic religion is complete subordination to a being.

You can claim that it is possible for a human to be conditioned to be completely subordinate to one being (god) yet still be able to fight as hard for their own autonomy against other beings (fellow humans), but that would be a very hard claim to prove. My claim is that once you subordinate yourself to any being completely, you have already started down the road of being a slave to every being.

 

[Admiral]

You can claim that it is possible for a human to be conditioned to be completely subordinate to one being (god) yet still be able to fight as hard for their own autonomy against other beings (fellow humans), but that would be a very hard claim to prove.

No religious individuals have ever tried to fight for autonomy? Palestinians, Islamic terrorists, and Indian rebels (such as Ghandi) all used religion as a way to be independent and fight what they believed were controlling forces. Some examples are positive, some negative- but you can't say that religion uniformly leads people to be passive.

My claim is that once you subordinate yourself to any being completely, you have already started down the road of being a slave to every being.

Where does this argument come from? An individual's relationship with God is extremely different than his relationship with other humans. The idea that someone "gets used to being a subordinate" and then becomes passive in everyday life is ridiculous.

It's true that in Catholicism, subordination to other human beings is common. However, that's a result of the structure of the religion- the higher one is in the hierarchy, the closer one is to God. It is NOT the result of some preference of being ordered around.

You may come up with this from some notion that "religious individuals are used to following strange and archaic orders, they're more likely to obey orders that come from soldiers." If so, your only mental image of religious people is of people who are incapable of thinking for themselves- and you claim that defines their entire life. You really couldn't be more far off...

 

[rocketdodger]

You really couldn't be more far off...

You might be talking about yourself, but I am talking about the religious as a whole. I don't think I am far off at all ... just take a look at the world.

 

[Admiral]

The religious as a whole?

Fine, if you believe that the religious in general are passive, go to a Baptist church in Texas. Stand in front of the congregation, and inform them that they should listen to whatever you tell them, since they're used to being subordinate anyway.

Or, for that matter, go to a Catholic Mass and tell the priest there that since he's used to listening to orders from higher levels of the Church, he should do as you say.

Tell the Israeli army to stop defending their country, because if they believe they're subordinate to God they might as well be subordinate to Palestinians.

Is this a strawman argument? Maybe. But consider how independent American Protestants are, or how much they try to influence the government. Consider how industrious Jews are in overcoming various forms of adversity. Or consider how the religious beliefs of a few twisted individuals led them to kill thousands of Americans because they felt their independence was threatened. Are these the passive and subordinate groups you were referring to?

OK, I took a look at the world. What I saw was that even though most religious people feel subordinate to God, they wouldn't in a thousand years want to feel subordinate to other humans.

 

[rocketdodger]

OK, I took a look at the world. What I saw was that even though most religious people feel subordinate to God, they wouldn't in a thousand years want to feel subordinate to other humans.

Unless, of course, they got some funny idea that being subordinate to those humans was the will of god.

I am trying really hard to find examples of religious hierarchy to support my argument, but I can't... oh wait, I was asleep. Now, lets see here...

 

[Admiral]

Unless, of course, they got some funny idea that being subordinate to those humans was the will of god.

I am trying really hard to find examples of religious hierarchy to support my argument, but I can't... oh wait, I was asleep. Now, lets see here...

Haha, true, and I acknowledged that the Catholic Church (as well as some other religions) have religious hierarchies that were supposedly the will of God.

However, this does absolutely nothing towards your claim about the Holocaust, because I can guarantee you that the Jews that were victims of the Holocaust did not believe that it was God's will to obey the Nazi's orders, or that the Nazis that spat on their religion were their superiors in a rigidly defined church structure.

Here's an analogy to another rigid system of superiority- the army. You admit that soldiers are trained to follow orders and feel subordinate to superior officers. Now, I claim that they don't put up enough of a fight when captured, and the reason is that they're used to feeling subordinate to superior officers, which is the first step towards feeling subordinate to enemy soldiers.

Doesn't that sound a little silly to you?

 

[rocketdodger]

Doesn't that sound a little silly to you?

Not at all, in fact it is right on. How else do you explain soldiers being expected to treat enemy officers in accordance with their rank in the enemy army?

 

[David Swidler]

ORLLY? Then can you please explain how Israel has managed to survive 50 years of being surrounded by enemies that want to see it completely destroyed, if not for the fact that the people living there are more ready to fight for themselves?

I have honestly never heard a jew complain about someone complimenting Israelis for their vigilance. Maybe you thought I was being sarcastic...

The thing is your artificial distinction between modern Israelis and Jews throughout history - specifically during the Holocaust - simply doesn't hold true. My own grandparents told me personal stories of valor and heroism in resisting the Nazis every way they and their families could. One of the reasons one might get such a sheep-to-the-slaughter impression is that those who did fight directly tended not to survive to tell about it. Resistance was moral, intellectual, passive - but resistance nevertheless. Nazi brutality in putting down rebellion tended to discourage anything else.

Somehow Jews managed to survive for a few thousand years without a military of their own, and with the ever-present spectre of persecution, inquisition, expulsion, pogroms, blood libels, et al. What you're seeing over the last 100 (not 50) years is simply a manifestation of Jews having to do the job themselves instead of relying on the powers that be.

I do not claim that I would be different! But, if it did happen to me, looking down from heaven, if I saw somebody bringing up the fact that I didn't fight for my life, I would have to agree with them. Do you dispute this?

What I dispute is your narrow definition of "fight." Gandhi might have had a thing or two to say about that.

I think you are inserting emotion and blame where there isn't -- I am not blaming holocaust victims for their deaths, and I am not insulting them. I am simply stating a fact.

Except that it's not a fact, it's your own (and, regretfully, many others') mistaken impression. And that is insulting, especially when you couple that with the absurd assertion that the victims' religious belief somehow contributed to this supposed passivity. By the way, do you know that the majority of Holocaust victims weren't even religious?

I also think that the passengers on the two flights that hit the twin towers didn't fight back. Am I condemning them? Of course not, they had no idea of what was going on and if they did I am sure they would have fought to the death. But they didn't, and that is a simple fact.

I do, however, think that things like this all across history point to a general trend in human behavior -- if you let someone push you around, it will probably lead to worse things than you originally calculated. Therefore it is my stance that nobody should ever let anyone push them around, even a little.

I agree with you on that. But again, there's an entire spectrum of "fighting" that goes beyond direct physical/military confrontation that you seem to neglect. Forgive me if that's a mistaken impression.

Edited to correct spelling.