NationStates Jolt Archive

At the moment, I can think of where these might conflict are Islamic, like Turkey and maybe Iran, as with many countries, e.g. Russia, the two can come hand-in-hand. But which on the whole which would be better running a country?

Nationalism, while an extremely destructive force responsible for practically every war ever, still is less afraid of progress and creates an impetus for growth and improvement. It is also perhaps less uncompromising than its religious counterpart (people are unlikely to ever convert from the religion of their birth, but compare the attitude of Germany in 1944 and 1946). It can also have a negative impact on the people themselves with dissent against the government being dissent against the nation, whereas in a more religious country, the highest power is not the government, but God.

On the other hand a devoutly religious country, while it has the potential to be intolerant of much around them, it has the advantage that the major force pushing it on is not of this world which can make the powers-that-be potentially less corrupt and more principled. Also when neighbouring countries are of the same faith it discourages conflict (looking at Islam again, many Muslims would like to see a single nation from Morroco to Indonesia united under Allah and free from their unpopular governments)

Extremism of any kind is a terrible thing, 'nuff said.

They have this tendency to go hand in hand, you know... I'd rather have neither.

There was no fundamentalist equivalent to Hitler yet in modern history, so no need to explain which is worse[/Godwins Law]

There was no fundamentalist equivalent to Hitler yet in modern history, so no need to explain which is worse[/Godwins Law]

He was Catholic.. and believe me, he used religion and religious fanatism well for his own ends.

There was no fundamentalist equivalent to Hitler yet in modern history, so no need to explain which is worse[/Godwins Law]
Err... Pol Pot was actually worse, since he killed a third of his own population through starvation, ethnic cleansing, cleansing of people deemed 'too intelligent', including those who dared to wear glasses etc.

He was just a massive nutter, though, not really a fundamentalist anything in particular.

There was no fundamentalist equivalent to Hitler yet in modern history, so no need to explain which is worse[/Godwins Law]

What about Tomás de Torquemada and other prominent members of the Spanish Inquisition? (I'll bet nobody expected me to bring them up) Probably the only thing that kept them from getting Hittler's numbers was the technology of the time.

They're both equally as bad. Religious fanaticism had done more terrible things because it is older and more wide spread, but they both have equal capacity for destruction.

Err... Pol Pot was actually worse, since he killed a third of his own population through starvation, ethnic cleansing, cleansing of people deemed 'too intelligent', including those who dared to wear glasses etc.

He was just a massive nutter, though, not really a fundamentalist anything in particular.

No, actually he seemed to be a fundamentalist in communist ideology. Trying to get his country back to "year zero" and all.

No, actually he seemed to be a fundamentalist in communist ideology. Trying to get his country back to "year zero" and all.

Maoist ideology in particular.

I'd say chauvinistic nationalism, because I think nationalism, as an ideology, is inherently trying to do good, the same goes for religion.

No, actually he seemed to be a fundamentalist in communist ideology. Trying to get his country back to "year zero" and all.
Two different concepts, I think it's fair to say that he was more a complete psychopath than anything else, and that, realistically, any kind of fundamentalism is Bad And Wrong.
Maoist ideology in particular.
Not really, it was his own strange and horrible brand of 'communism'.

At least Nationalism does good (and bad) Modern nationalism isn't needed really, but older Nationalism helped liberate people from the rule of oppressive monarchs and totalarian regimes.

So It scores a point on my board.

Religious fundamentalism was never good, will never be good, and has no capacity for good. All it does is label other people who do not conform to their own religious beliefs and kill them off society. All RF preads is intolerance, hate, delusion, psuedo-science, and death to a core group of humans. (As seen in the popular era, the Middle Ages).

It has negative points on my board.

Gandhi was a nationalist, and the Indian National Congress was largely responsible for motivating Indians to take their independence from the colonial British.

So nationalism, in the sense that it means taking care of your own, can easily be a good thing. Fundamentalism at best is politically indifferent, and at worst is motivation for destruction.

like all things, nationalism is bad in the extreme... But moderate nationalism is not a bad thing..... Fundamentalism on the other hand is much worse...

Using a god to try to excuse your crazy-ass actions is just as bad as using a country, any other cause, a rock, a cheezburger or a little boy named Timmy. The lesson here: Don't be a crazy-ass extremist of any kind, please.

I can theoretically think of religious fundamentalists belonging to a really laid back faith, while I have trouble thinking of nationalism in small doses that doesn't lead to at least some weird and potentially harmful opinions.

But as Ifreann wisely says:
Don't be a crazy-ass extremist of any kind, please.

the concept of nationalism, ie a certain groups right to autonomy is generally benign and quite rare it leads to conflict. but in its extreme it leads to Nazism, Israel and the Balkan situation.

religious intolerance is genereally always bad, but has a lot of catching up to do.

He was Catholic.. and believe me, he used religion and religious fanatism well for his own ends.

He was born Catholic, yes. And he used Catholic principles in his propaganda techniques. But he was against religion and planned to get rid off it after the war was over.

I'd say chauvinistic nationalism, because I think nationalism, as an ideology, is inherently trying to do good, the same goes for religion.It's sort of like how authoritarian commies are out to do good, think up the most insanely cruel and vicious way to do something, and then get all surprised and offended when their good intentions don't materialize.

Personally I think the best answer to plague vs. cholera questions like this, is to humbly suggest whatever fuckers came up with the idea, be tied to a couple of tons of bricks & dumped in an ocean.

There was no fundamentalist equivalent to Hitler yet in modern history, so no need to explain which is worse[/Godwins Law]

Unfortunately, Osama's trying to do all he can to disprove your statement. :headbang:

I'd say religion ITSELF is probably even worse than nationalism. Most arguments that can be used against nationalism apply just as well to religion, let alone fundamentalism.

He was Catholic.. and believe me, he used religion and religious fanatism well for his own ends.

True, Nazism took the Christian culture's framework and replaced its fundamental essence with a fascist one.
I don't know if Hitler was actually a Christian, though. Besides the obvious reasons (good Christians are not genocidal), I know he believed the churches encouraged weakness, and tried to consolidate all of them into one, German church, a latter-day kulturkampf. In this way, he stole bits of Nietzsche to promote Nazism.
Basically, Hitler took a bunch of different older philosophies and twisted them to fit his own warped beliefs. It be interesting to go through something like Mein Kampf or one of his speeches and match up what he's saying with an older idea.

As for the original question: neither fundamentalism nor nationalism is necessarily violent, or even vocal. I said nationalism only because I could think of more casualties do to nationalism (mostly in WWII) than I could think of for fundamentalism. It's kind of a toss-up, though.

I can theoretically think of religious fundamentalists belonging to a really laid back faith, while I have trouble thinking of nationalism in small doses that doesn't lead to at least some weird and potentially harmful opinions.

I think the problem is that both terms are negative, so we only call people with a fierce love of their nation nationalists when they propose to build a giant wall, and only call those who interpret Scriptures literally as fundamentalists when they bomb an abortion clinic. There are probably plenty of both that we don't label just because they don't do or say anything outrageous.

I think the problem is that both terms are negative, so we only call people with a fierce love of their nation nationalists when they propose to build a giant wall, and only call those who interpret Scriptures literally as fundamentalists when they bomb an abortion clinic. There are probably plenty of both that we don't label just because they don't do or say anything outrageous.

Yes indeed. I believe there is a fine line between fundamentalism and extremism. Likewise with nationalism and patriotism.

But I beleive theat the question is: which is worse, killing in the name of a god or gods, or killing in the name of a country?

Well, I believe that to extreme nationalists, their country is their god.
there is no soltion worse half in my opinion.

He was Catholic.. and believe me, he used religion and religious fanatism well for his own ends.

Hitler was only baptized as a Catholic. In reality, he didn't think Christians were any better than Jews. Hitler really tried to create a cult that revered him as the savior of the Germans, and so, in his eyes, the world.

Stalin made Hitler look like a priss, and Stalin was setting up a purely Atheist state. But the media at large doesn't like to focus on radical lefties as long as there are radical righties.

Extremism of any kind is a terrible thing, 'nuff said.
I fervently disagree, without an extreme challenging of all 'established' and 'conserved' facts and truths society would never progress, it would be an eternal stagnation similar to feudalism. 'Ideology' is a recipe for stagnation because it sets the 'ideal' as the highest, a near spiritual, near impossible dream or utopia, in reality it's a recipe to simply conserve existing contradictions in society under the excuse of an 'ideal'. Indeed 'ideologies' on both sides of the political spectrum do this, whether they be the wild dreamers of the 'free market' and 'total liberty' or the left communists and Utopians. Only through an analytical and pragmatic challenging of the entire rotten edifice of contradiction, can we weed out all reactionary tendencies and the attitude to 'conserve' at the expense to 'progress'. Marxism-Leninism, as the name suggest, is a progression and in itself a fully-fledged science.

Marxism-Leninism, as the name suggest, is a progression and in itself a fully-fledged science.

The name doesn't actually suggest this it all, but rather than it is a way of thinking based on the ideas of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. Now, if it were called "progressive-sciencism"...

The name doesn't actually suggest this it all, but rather than it is a way of thinking based on the ideas of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. Now, if it were called "progressive-sciencism"...

Well if you don't know what '-' means between two terms then I will leave you to it.

At the moment, I can think of where these might conflict are Islamic, like Turkey and maybe Iran, as with many countries, e.g. Russia, the two can come hand-in-hand. But which on the whole which would be better running a country?

Nationalism, while an extremely destructive force responsible for practically every war ever, still is less afraid of progress and creates an impetus for growth and improvement. It is also perhaps less uncompromising than its religious counterpart (people are unlikely to ever convert from the religion of their birth, but compare the attitude of Germany in 1944 and 1946). It can also have a negative impact on the people themselves with dissent against the government being dissent against the nation, whereas in a more religious country, the highest power is not the government, but God.

On the other hand a devoutly religious country, while it has the potential to be intolerant of much around them, it has the advantage that the major force pushing it on is not of this world which can make the powers-that-be potentially less corrupt and more principled. Also when neighbouring countries are of the same faith it discourages conflict (looking at Islam again, many Muslims would like to see a single nation from Morroco to Indonesia united under Allah and free from their unpopular governments)

Just thinkin' the same thing the other day ... Thursday that is ... after considering Huckabee.

Religious fundamentalism.

I would be a nationalist myself, except the things I have such sentiments for aren't nations.

There are probably plenty of both that we don't label just because they don't do or say anything outrageous.
I suppose this could well be true.

Still, they may hold some rather strange opinions.

Only through an analytical and pragmatic challenging of the entire rotten edifice of contradiction, can we weed out all reactionary tendencies and the attitude to 'conserve' at the expense to 'progress'. Marxism-Leninism, as the name suggest, is a progression and in itself a fully-fledged science.
Apologies to everyone for the lengthy hijack, but this must be said:

Marxism-Leninism is neither analytical, scientific, nor revolutionary.

Firstly, It fails to be analytical or scientific because it fails to accurately describe modern society and modern capitalism. Marx may have written a number of wonderful critiques of 19th century capitalism, but capitalism has changed and evolved sine his day; do we really expect he could foresee what society would be like in 2007?

The position of the state in capitalism has changed radically since the 1860s: rather than being simply a laissez-faire free market, up to the whims of competition, the state plays a large role in capitalism, planning economies in a way which Marx described socialism, not capitalism, would achieve. The 'role' of the working class has also changed massively from Marx's day, the 'industrial proletariat' is a minority of the population of Western industrialised countries, and fails to hold any political or economic power crucial to Marx's task for them. The 'class struggle' has all but disappeared, with trade unions and socialist or communist parties co-opted into capitalism; both types or organisation are very much part of the 'bourgeoisie' system, and they merely quibble over the length of time or the amount of pay workers receive. They have no move towards revolution, and they do not wish to do so.

Secondly, Marxism-Leninism fails to be revolutionary because, to quote Murray Bookchin, its function is to "seize power, not dissolve power". The hierarchy and bureaucracy of capitalism merely passes over to a new set of masters; to masters who have throughout the past 200 years consistently tried to stifle freedom and revolutionary change in France, Spain, Russia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc.

The 'revolutionary' Party is one of the very things that prevent revolution. It centralises, creates hierarchy and bureaucracy, violently oppresses differing opinions and moves for real change. In short, the Party, and Marxism-Leninism with it, cannot ever be said to achieve a revolutionary change towards freedom and liberty.

EA/AP, you talk fervently about the need to change society, liberate your fellow human beings, and revolutionise those institutions in society which stagnate and trap people. Why, then, do you advocate moving towards a society which has all the problems of capitalism, but with red banners and fierce slogans?

Abandon the Party, join the people!

Personally I think you're letting recent events (in particular: recent events involving the United States) get in the way of the bigger picture, I think my opinion could be spotted in the statement:

Nationalism, while an extremely destructive force responsible for practically every war ever...

:P

Find me a single religiously motivated event that killed more than a couple of thousand of people (like all those little wars in Africa that never make the news are doing, or either world war did or the European colonisation of the the Americas, the Mongol conquests etc). I dare you.

At the moment, I can think of where these might conflict are Islamic, like Turkey and maybe Iran, as with many countries, e.g. Russia, the two can come hand-in-hand. But which on the whole which would be better running a country?You can't tell. Both are bad, and whether one is "better" will depend directly on the individual(s) running the country.

Find me a single religiously motivated event that killed more than a couple of thousand of people (like all those little wars in Africa that never make the news are doing, or either world war did or the European colonisation of the the Americas, the Mongol conquests etc). I dare you.
Crusades.

I think aggressive and violent religious extremism is worse than nationalism, but that nationalism is the greater threat because it's more prevalent.

Find me a single religiously motivated event that killed more than a couple of thousand of people (like all those little wars in Africa that never make the news are doing, or either world war did or the European colonisation of the the Americas, the Mongol conquests etc). I dare you.

Armenian Genocide.
Black Death.
Holocaust.
1991 uprisings in Iraq.
Second [Israeli] Intifada.

Armenian Genocide.
Black Death.
Holocaust.
1991 uprisings in Iraq.
Second [Israeli] Intifada.None of those were religiously motivated.

Crusades.

I'll concede that one. But I do think that's about it really

I'll concede that one. But I do think that's about it really
You'll concede those ones. There were many (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades) Crusades, spanning about 200 years.

And not to forget the hundreds of years of Catholic vs. Protestant violence which, in the place I live at least, still occasionally flares up. Usually after an Old Firm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Firm) match.

All of this, of course, is very Anglocentric; it's not as if other parts of the world aren't blighted by violence, religious or otherwise. Moreover, many wars have been waged on both religious and nationalistic grounds; they often go hand-in-hand.

Personally I think you're letting recent events (in particular: recent events involving the United States) get in the way of the bigger picture, I think my opinion could be spotted in the statement:



:P

Find me a single religiously motivated event that killed more than a couple of thousand of people (like all those little wars in Africa that never make the news are doing, or either world war did or the European colonisation of the the Americas, the Mongol conquests etc). I dare you.

Uhhh, only one of the worst wars in human history. The Thirty Years War. Some 11 million of Germany's 18 million died. And it was a war between France and Sweden.

And also the Crusades, the Muslim Conquest of the Middle East, almost every war in India from around 1300-1700, and the contemporary War on Terrorism. Not to mention countless minor wars and persecutions.

Armenian Genocide.
Black Death.
Holocaust.
1991 uprisings in Iraq.
Second [Israeli] Intifada.

...the...black...DEATH....?????????

...the...black...DEATH....?????????
Catholic fleas.

*nods sagely*

Hitler was only baptized as a Catholic. In reality, he didn't think Christians were any better than Jews. Hitler really tried to create a cult that revered him as the savior of the Germans, and so, in his eyes, the world.

I'd like to see you back that one up.
Hitler regarded himself as Catholic till the day he died, he refered to his religious beliefs in his testament.

Extremism of any kind is a terrible thing, 'nuff said.

This is the correct answer. :)

Fundamentalism is pretty harmless without nationalism, so I pick nationalism.

True, Nazism took the Christian culture's framework and replaced its fundamental essence with a fascist one.
I don't know if Hitler was actually a Christian, though. Besides the obvious reasons (good Christians are not genocidal), I know he believed the churches encouraged weakness, and tried to consolidate all of them into one, German church, a latter-day kulturkampf. In this way, he stole bits of Nietzsche to promote Nazism.
Basically, Hitler took a bunch of different older philosophies and twisted them to fit his own warped beliefs. It be interesting to go through something like Mein Kampf or one of his speeches and match up what he's saying with an older idea.



I would say that the concept of "good Christian" has changed drastically in the last century or so. Before that, good Christians had not the least bit of problem with genocide, be that on Muslims in the Reconquista, Native Americans both in North and South America, Jews in progroms during all of European history, etc. No qualms there, really.
I think he must have regarded himself as an old-book Christian (old testament, if you like), and yes, he did include quite a bit of philosophy into his beliefs.
The thing about religion is, not matter what religion, you can make it fit whatever you belief anyway. And fundamentalists tend not to be the people who try and enforce the nice bits about their religions...

He was born Catholic, yes. And he used Catholic principles in his propaganda techniques. But he was against religion and planned to get rid off it after the war was over.

Nope. He encouraged a national-socialist version of Chrisitanity.

I would say that the concept of "good Christian" has changed drastically in the last century or so. Before that, good Christians had not the least bit of problem with genocide, be that on Muslims in the Reconquista, Native Americans both in North and South America, Jews in progroms during all of European history, etc. No qualms there, really.
I think he must have regarded himself as an old-book Christian (old testament, if you like), and yes, he did include quite a bit of philosophy into his beliefs.
The thing about religion is, not matter what religion, you can make it fit whatever you belief anyway. And fundamentalists tend not to be the people who try and enforce the nice bits about their religions...

The thing is, you can't say he used religion, he merely tried to appease the religious folk in consolidating his power base, being careful not to enrage them. In fact, he tried to appease everyone by basically lying to all of them (redistribution of wealth for the workers, anti Bolshevism for the industrialists etc...), he didn't give a shit about the democratic system, he was just desperate for power. He 'used' religion no more then he used any other class or type of person, and in fact in his later years the church was one of the few opposition groups that were still even at least a minor threat to his regime in the later years, and many Nazis tried to destroy the church completely, such as Martin Bormann who was Hitlers right hand man. The most important thing however is that religious fundamentalism had almost nothing to do with any of this, the Nazis were not inspired or supported by religious fundamentalism.

Nope. He encouraged a national-socialist version of Chrisitanity.

Which elevated Hitler above Jesus... the national-socialist church was only very loosely christian and more pagan, and was used to take members away from real Christian churches who were a potential threat, not because he actually gave a shit about any particular religion.

The thing is, you can't say he used religion, he merely tried to appease the religious folk in consolidating his power base, being careful not to enrage them. In fact, he tried to appease everyone by basically lying to all of them (redistribution of wealth for the workers, anti Bolshevism for the industrialists etc...), he didn't give a shit about the democratic system, he was just desperate for power. He 'used' religion no more then he used any other class or type of person, and in fact in his later years the church was one of the few opposition groups that were still even at least a minor threat to his regime in the later years, and many Nazis tried to destroy the church completely, such as Martin Bormann who was Hitlers right hand man. The most important thing however is that religious fundamentalism had almost nothing to do with any of this, the Nazis were not inspired or supported by religious fundamentalism.

Considering that the Nationalsocialist idea had as one of its focal point an irrational, lethal hatred of Jews and anything Jewish, I would say it had quite a strong religious aspect to it. Not in the Christian-biblical sense, but firmly based on religion nonetheless.

Which elevated Hitler above Jesus... the national-socialist church was only very loosely christian and more pagan, and was used to take members away from real Christian churches who were a potential threat, not because he actually gave a shit about any particular religion.And it worked best in the Protestant parts of Germany...

Considering that the Nationalsocialist idea had as one of its focal point an irrational, lethal hatred of Jews and anything Jewish, I would say it had quite a strong religious aspect to it. Not in the Christian-biblical sense, but firmly based on religion nonetheless.

Well the Nazis were antisemitic for social darwinistic reasons, nothing to do with religion. Antisemitism was growing amongst normal people in Germany, but was not exclusively religious.

Which elevated Hitler above Jesus... the national-socialist church was only very loosely christian and more pagan, and was used to take members away from real Christian churches who were a potential threat, not because he actually gave a shit about any particular religion.

I beg to differ :


My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.

-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922

Quote (http://nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm)

There was no nationalsocialist church that ever had any significant influence in Germany. Rather, the NSPAD tried to get the existing churches in line with part ideology, and most congregations were more than willing to do so.

Well the Nazis were antisemitic for social darwinistic reasons, nothing to do with religion. Antisemitism was growing amongst normal people in Germany, but was not exclusively religious.

It wasn't growing, really. It's been there in Europe for centuries, flaring up again and again in times of crises. There had been progroms in Poland, Russia and the Ukraine after WWI, and the hatred was at best dormant by the time the NSDAP came to power in Germany.

I beg to differ :


That quote was long before the elections, and again was just another example of Hitler lying to another social group in order to get support.


There was no nationalsocialist church that ever had any significant influence in Germany. Rather, the NSPAD tried to get the existing churches in line with part ideology

It did two main things: it tried to create a unified and nazified protestant Reich Church, encouraging members onto the protestant church and trying to undermine the catholic church. It also signed a concordat with the Pope, assuring that Hitler would not attempt to control the catholic church (you must note that the Vatican in no way supported Nazism, and issued many statements harshly against it, but the Pope was simply unable to do anything about Hitler, so he hoped that by making sure the catholic church in Germany would still be controlled by the Vatican and uncorrupted by Hitler, they would later undermine the power of the Nazis).


and most congregations were more than willing to do so.

Very wrong, this attempt at nazification provoked a strong reaction, resulting in a broke away Church called the confessional church, which had increased support. Most Clerics who did support the Nazi Reich church were doing so through fear.

An important point is, this is all done for pragmatic reasons (undermine the power of the catholic church in Germany and remove opposition from the protestants), rather then for religious reasons.