"Secular consumerism/nationalism is worse than religion

[Starglider]

Religion, nationalism and corporate greed very often feed off each other. Much of America's recent adventures in the middle east are a good example of this.

[Darth Wong]

Religion, nationalism and corporate greed very often feed off each other. Much of America's recent adventures in the middle east are a good example of this.

It's a symbiotic relationship. Corporate greed provides the motive. Nationalism provides the weapons. Religion erodes critical thought, to keep people from seeing the influence of corporate greed and the dangers of nationalism.

Mind you, in the past the relationship was quite a bit different, with religious people slaughtering each other over doctrinal differences. America is a nominally secular nation where religion is used to dull the senses of the populace and give them easy scapegoats for problems that are actually caused by corporate greed and government mismanagement.

[Vendetta]

Religion and Nationalism are two different ways of expressing the same thing, the division between Us and Them.

[Stuart Mackey]

Yes, that looked ugly to me too even as I posted it, but I'm gonna play the "too late didn't pay attention" card here. It's not lost on me.

I am not sure of the point of this, as it seems like one big question that should be answered by you via research.

Do I look like a researcher? I'm asking you guys. If I had the time to do original research, that's what I'd do.

.

I was not aware that my presence on this forum was to do your work for you.
Moreover, I can manage to do research on my on time, why shouldn't you?

[Kanastrous]

Well, the linkage between Christianity and the Holocaust is fairly remote

A false statement.

Lutheranism in Germany aggravated Jew-hatred tremendously, among a population that was already prejudiced against the Jewish minority, despite the isolated actions of a few German princes who legally enfranchised Jews, for financial reasons.

Luther wrote specifically about Jews being a 'plague', being a 'pestilence,' being 'nothing but a misfortune for our land,' and urged that Jews be deprived of property and legal protections, be set to hard manual labor, and that they have their synagogues razed and their Holy Books confiscated and burned (all advice the Nazis took to heart, and then some).

For some strange reason, Lutherans aren't often heard talking about this aspect of their founder's beliefs, although his writings on the matter are crystal-clear.

The Nazis deliberately co-opted Protestant churchmen in Germany, many of whom were more than happy to lend their authority to the Nazi cause, and espoused 'Positive Christianity,' Nazism's state-approved form of Lutheranism.

Christianity laid the groundwork for the Holocaust; don't let anyone bullshit you otherwise.

[Kanastrous]

^ sorry; I was so eager to post that, that I didn't read along far enough to notice that it was already admirably covered, already.

My fault.

[Dooey Jo]

While the Holocaust was bad, you have to remember that nationalism played a big part in causing the war itself, which claimed some ten times or so more lives.

And I can really see nationalism as being worse in many ways than religion today, especially in more secular nations. You won't find many people that are willing to kill for their god outside religious shitholes like the Middle-East, and perhaps America's Bible Belt. But people willing to kill for their nation? Why you're an unpatriotic coward commie traitor pacifist if you're not willing to kill for your nation, go back to Russia or wherever you came from.

It also feeds racism like nothing else, and when religion is brought up it's not very important what that religion says, but that the foreigners have a different religion and thus can never be a part of the "culture" of the nation in question (doesn't matter if you convert; if you were born different, you can never truly be a part). One nation, one people, one language, one religion, one hair-do, all that crap.

The most rabid nationalists even have their own theory of evolution, which, unsurprisingly, say that racial interbreeding is bad (and that inbreeding is good). "Race" being defined by what country you were born in...

[Darth Wong]

Indeed. As I said earlier, nationalism is a very real competitor in the killing-contest. I don't see the point of defending nationalism either; it is much easier and more logically sound to defuse this line of argument by saying that you can hardly exonerate religion by comparing it to other sources of strife such as nationalism or xenophobia.

[DavidEC]

When they do say that, the proper response is probably "So finally you admit religion is a murderous bastard?"

In addition, I sincerely doubt any intelligent people actually believe in secular consumerism or nationalism, although whether or not they unconsciously contribute to them (e.g. by obsessing over consumer products) is another question. Regardless I expect most people who push the anti-religion argument subscribe to one of the many alternatives, principally rational, calm, secular humanism, so it is a false dilemma as well as a tu quoque fallacy.

[Androsphinx]

While Martin Luther was undoubtedly exceptionally anti-semitic, it's hardly a direct link between that and Nazi anti-semitism, especially in its eliminationist form. 20th century German anti-semitism was very different in character to its Lutheran predecessor. There is a huge amount of historiography on the subject, especially as to the origins and widespread nature of German anti-semitism in the 1930s - and very little of it is religious in nature.

Historical linkage and causation requires a lot more work that just "Luther was a German Protestant, and anti-semitic. Therefore post-Enlightenment, Kantian, supremely educated and civilised German Protestants who were also anti-semitic must have been so for the same reasons".

The best guide to the intentions of the Nazi heirarchy for anything which happened in Germany is, of course, Mein Kampf (MK). While anti-semitism was the most obvious and consistent feature of Hitler's rhetoric and ideology from his earliest days, it's not based on Christianity in any way. The only reference I found to the crucifixion in MK was this:

The Jew himself is the best example of the kind of product which this religious training evolves. His life is of this world only and his mentality is as foreign to the true spirit of Christianity as his character was foreign to the great Founder of this new creed two thousand years ago. And the Founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of His estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But at that time Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews; whereas our modern Christians enter into party politics and when elections are being held they debase themselves to beg for Jewish votes.

Anyone who has read MK will be aware that the number and variety of accusations and offences he ascribes to the Jews of Germany, all of which are of a far worse nature. Here's one I picked at random:

What soon gave me cause for very serious consideration were the activities of the Jews in certain branches of life, into the mystery of which I penetrated little by little. Was there any shady undertaking, any form of foulness, especially in cultural life, in which at least one Jew did not participate? On putting the probing knife carefully to that kind of abscess one immediately discovered, like a maggot in a putrescent body, a little Jew who was often blinded by the sudden light.
In my eyes the charge against Judaism became a grave one the moment I discovered the Jewish activities in the Press, in art, in literature and the theatre. All unctuous protests were now more or less futile. One needed only to look at the posters announcing the hideous productions of the cinema and theatre, and study the names of the authors who were highly lauded there in order to become permanently adamant on Jewish questions. Here was a pestilence, a moral pestilence, with which the public was being infected. It was worse than the Black Plague of long ago. And in what mighty doses this poison was manufactured and distributed. Naturally, the lower the moral and intellectual level of such an author of artistic products the more inexhaustible his fecundity. Sometimes it went so far that one of these fellows, acting like a sewage pump, would shoot his filth directly in the face of other members of the human race. In this connection we must remember there is no limit to the number of such people. One ought to realize that for one, Goethe, Nature may bring into existence ten thousand such despoilers who act as the worst kind of germ-carriers in poisoning human souls. It was a terrible thought, and yet it could not be avoided, that the greater number of the Jews seemed specially destined by Nature to play this shameful part.

As for the Churches' own opinion. I'll quote from Daniel Goldhagen, who is a good example because his position is that historic German anti-semitism was deep-rooted, widespread, and a, if not the, significant factor in the Holocaust. His conclusions have been vigorously attacked since he first published "Hitler's Willing Executioners" in 1996, since he's of the opinion that "Ordinary Germans" were directly implicated and to blame (as you can imagine, not a very popular position).

The Nazi's ferocious antisemitism was not a feature of their movement to which the church objected. On the contrary, they welcomed it, for they too were antisemetic. They too believed in the necessity of curtailing and eliminating the putative power of the Jews... the hostility was for the most part extra-religious, secular in character - an echo of the temporal enmity to the Jews that coursed through German society. It did not spring merely from theological sources; it was not merely a latter-day reiteration of the perennial and deep-rooted Christian condemnation of the Jews as a "reprehensible people", as the crucifiers of Jesus, and as the stiff-necked spurners of the Christian revelation. Conjoined with that ancient accusation, and greatly overshadowing it, was the modern indictment of the Jews as the principle driving force behind the relentless tide of modernity that was steadily eroding hallowed and time-honoured values and traditions. They held the Jews to be promoters of mammonism, of "soulless capitalism" of materialism, of liberalism, and, above all else, of that skeptical and iconoclastic temper that was seen as the bane of the age

In other words, not even the churches' anti-semitism was based on theological concerns. While pre-war anti-semitism is of course indisputable, its causes - especially in the modern world - are highly disputed, and the part that Christianity played is generally considered to be minor. English and American Protestants, for example, hardly shared Hitler's feelings, so to make a direct link between Luther and Wiemer anti-semitism hardly applies as directly as you imply.

[Androsphinx]

More generally on the original question, people tend to advertise their ideological intentions, and play down pragmatic and selfish motives. While there are exceptions, if you can't find in the written record any trace of a particular ideological motivation, it's probably not there. Self-interested motivations, on the other hand, often require considerably more work to discover.

[General Zod]

>snip bullshit<

So where the fuck did the anti-semitic attitude of your average German come from if not religious bullshit? You seem to be doing all you can to deny there's a connection without providing proof of another cause.

The Jew himself is the best example of the kind of product which this religious training evolves. His life is of this world only and his mentality is as foreign to the true spirit of Christianity as his character was foreign to the great Founder of this new creed two thousand years ago.

How the fuck does anyone interpret this as the anti-semitism being anything but religiously motivated?

[Kanastrous]

Mental contortionism?

[Androsphinx]

So where the fuck did the anti-semitic attitude of your average German come from if not religious bullshit? You seem to be doing all you can to deny there's a connection without providing proof of another cause.

I cannot believe that you are actually this stupid! You've done nothing but assert your claim without providing any evidence at all. I just quoted Mein Kampf twice, and a leading scholar of Nazi Germany (whose general position should be sympathetic to your argument, and you call the entire thign "bullshit". I asked you yesterday to find me a leading Nazi who attributed eliminationist anti-semitism to theological concerns, and you've produced nothing.

I even provided, in the quote from Goldhagen, an answer to the question you just asked. Let's try again:

the modern indictment of the Jews as the principle driving force behind the relentless tide of modernity that was steadily eroding hallowed and time-honoured values and traditions. They held the Jews to be promoters of mammonism, of "soulless capitalism" of materialism, of liberalism, and, above all else, of that skeptical and iconoclastic temper that was seen as the bane of the age

Broadly speaking the German attitudes were based on a mixture of racism, bigotry, extreme nationalism, and a need for an external scapegoat. See also below.

How the fuck does anyone interpret this as the anti-semitism being anything but religiously motivated?

Again, are you -actually- this stupid? First, I'll explain my purpose in bringing the quote (which should have been obvious). Then I'll answer your question.

1 - As I mentioned when I quoted MK, this was the only reference I found to the crucifixion:

When He found it necessary He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But at that time Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews; whereas our modern Christians enter into party politics and when elections are being held they debase themselves to beg for Jewish votes.

You'll notice, I hope, that Hitler does not say that the Jews killed Jesus. He instead attributes his opposition to the Jews as being due to their commerical interests, and says that to protect those, he was killed. Again, he does not say that the Jews killed Jesus. While this may seem like a tiny difference to you, because you known nothing of historic anti-semitism and the churches, suffice it to say that the historical Chrisian claim of deicide requires both that the Jews directly committed the act, and that they did so out of a rejection of Jesus' messianic qualities and his religious position. Both are absent here.

It should also be pointed out in this respect that Hitler does so because he (like most other Germans in the early 20th century) accepted the findings of Higher Criticism that the claim that the Jews were responsible was interpolated into the Gospels at a later date in order to shift blame from the Romans (whom Christians increasingly wanted to get along with) to the Jews (whom they did not). I'll repeat to be clearer - in the only section (which I could find) of Mein Kampf where Hitler writes about Jesus' death, he blames the Jews only by proxy, and attributes it to commerical interests. Do you see how this is different to historical Christian anti-semitism?

2 - It should be clear that Hitler is providing the example of Jesus as one of many historical and current examples of Jews' opposition to the welfare of others for their own interests. Hitler contrasts early Christian opposition to the Jews with current (1920s) attempts to obtain their support for politics. He is saying that Jews have ever been outcasts and opposed to Christian interests, and providing examples - one of which involves Jesus, and that they are antithetical to true German values - of which Christianity was one.

Finally, I think I should ask at this stage if you know anything about the history of 20th century Germany and the causes of the Holocaust. Are you aware of what "The Jewish Question" was in 1930s and early 1940s Germany, and how it was unrelated to the historic claims of the Catholic and Protestant churches? That is is referring to their ability to integrate and assimilate into the general culture of Western Europe? That anti-semitism was primarily cultural and social throughout that 19th century in resistance to increased Jewish integration and success in society, and mainly not religous? That Jews were seen as both external (and thus disloyal) and internal (and thus conspiratorial)? That Hitler thought that the Jews were both Bolshevik revolutionaries and international financeers, determined to unite communism and capitalism against Germany?

Moving on, have you read any of the historical literature on the subject? Are you aware of the huge debate between "intentionality" and "functionality"? Have you read Timothy Mason's hugely influential article where he outlines this divide? Have you read Christopher Browning's ordinary men (he's a functionalist, FYI). Lucy Dawidowicz (an intentionalism)? You are aware, I'm sure, that there's an entire school of legitimate historical investigation which sees the entire move from forced emigration to genocide as resulting from internal Nazi politics and attempts to gain Hitler's favour? You do know, I'm assume, that the entire argument that eliminationist anti-semitism (regardless of its causes) was widespread and supported by ordinary Germans is a minority one, and that even Goldhagen (one of the leading proponents of this thesis), who draws a link to medieval attitudes, is postive that it was to a great extent secularised by 1930s, particularly in the Nazi hierarchy?

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, what that fuck gives you the right to have an opinion on this matter of historical debate?

[Androsphinx]

Mental contortionism?

If you have nothing useful to say, don't "me-too" from ignorance.

[Androsphinx]

And here, just for you, is Ian Kershaw on Hitler's anti-semitism. From "Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris" p125

Hitler's well known reply to Gemlich, dated 16 September 1919, is his first recorded written statement abou the "Jewish Question". He wrote that anti-semitism should be based not on religion but on "facts", the first of which was that Jewry was a race, not a religion. Emotive antisemitism would produce pogroms, he continued; antisemitism based on "reason" must, on the other hand, lead to the systematic removal of the rights of Jews. "Its final aim, " he concluded "must unshakeably be the removal of the Jews altogether"

The Gemlich letter reveals for the first time key basic elements of Hitler's Weltanschauung which from them on remained unaltered to the last days in the Berlin bunker: antisemitism resting on race theoryl and the creation of a unifyinh nationalism founded on the need to combat the external and internal power of the Jews

[Kanastrous]

Mental contortionism?

If you have nothing useful to say, don't "me-too" from ignorance.

Okay, fair enough.

Luther - and his forbearers, for centuries - laid a groundwork of Jew-hatred among Germans so deeply that, to use the old expression, 'Germans drank in anti-semitism with their mothers' milk.'

Whether or not Hitler specifically labelled Jews 'Christ-killers' is not significant. The way for the Nazis' policies toward the Jewish minority was prepared by centuries of blood libel, Church persecution, Lutheran writings and cultivated prejudice and distaste, which the Nazis exploited and built upon.

It's unnecessary for Hitler, et all to specifically cite the particulars of that groundwork, in order for them to have utilized it, for their purposes.

Luther's, and his various allies-in-Jew-hatred's contributions, did just as much damage and paved the way for just as much horror, in creating a gestalt for later anti-semites to exploit, whether they specifically footnoted him, or not.

[Androsphinx]

Okay, fair enough.

Luther - and his forbearers, for centuries - laid a groundwork of Jew-hatred among Germans so deeply that, to use the old expression, 'Germans drank in anti-semitism with their mothers' milk.'

Whether or not Hitler specifically labelled Jews 'Christ-killers' is not significant. The way for the Nazis' policies toward the Jewish minority was prepared by centuries of blood libel, Church persecution, Lutheran writings and cultivated prejudice and distaste, which the Nazis exploited and built upon.

It's unnecessary for Hitler, et all to specifically cite the particulars of that groundwork, in order for them to have utilized it, for their purposes.

Luther's, and his various allies-in-Jew-hatred's contributions, did just as much damage and paved the way for just as much horror, in creating a gestalt for later anti-semites to exploit, whether they specifically footnoted him, or not.

It's like you're not listening to a word I said. Let's go again. If Lutheran anti-semitism is religiously-founded, and centred around the idea of Jews as the murderers and rejecters of Jesus; and modern Nazi anti-semitism is centred around the Jews as a racial group, and centred around the idea of Jews as international manipulators and conspiracists, there is a clear disparity between the two.

Now there is a school of thought - to which I've aluded repeatedly - that tracks medieval religious anti-semitism, sees its decline and a rise of social/cultural/racial anti-semitism, and links the one to the other. This is a legitimate historical position. It is just considerably more complex and roundabout than, say, the Crusades, which are nakedly and patently religiously-motivated. It is also a minority opinion amongst modern historians, although a very popular one for the less-informed. It's generally a sub-set of the "functionalist" school, who emphasise popular involvement in radicalising anti-semitism, and "bottom-up" explanations for the emergence of extermination as the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question". There's another sub-set of the same school - ratherlarger, IMO - which points to immediate 1930s and 40s causes of increasing radicalisation - including the rhetoric and ideology of the Nazis, the onset of "Global war" which Hitler blamed on "international Jewry" and swore that they would not survive, the brutalising nature of war, etc, etc, etc.

The other school - the intentionalists - attribute much more strongly the Holocaust directly to the rhetoric and ideology of Hitler, and the attempts of his subordinates to achieve his desires. They emphasise the dehumanising nature of the concentration and extermination camps, internal upper-echelon Nazi politics, the psychological block of "following orders", and see very much the move towards extermination as being driven by the ideological beliefs of Hitler and his close circle which, as discussed previously, were almost entirely detached from religious anti-semitism.

I should note that "historic anti-semitism" is a convenient and popular explanation for many people who have trouble with the idea that millions of sane, cultured and civilised people could be convinced in a matter of a few years, that the genocide of a minority with whom they have lived for centuries was not just justifiable but imperative for the survival of the nation. One of the reasons why I'm going to lengths to explain and justify my position is that the position "Oh, well the Germans committed genocide because of Christianity" rapidly becomes "I would never commit genocide , because I don't believe in invisible teapots at L-1". In my mind this is a flawed understanding of human nature and behaviour, is deluded, and is very dangerous.

[AdmiralKanos]

It's like you're not listening to a word I said. Let's go again. If Lutheran anti-semitism is religiously-founded, and centred around the idea of Jews as the murderers and rejecters of Jesus; and modern Nazi anti-semitism is centred around the Jews as a racial group, and centred around the idea of Jews as international manipulators and conspiracists, there is a clear disparity between the two.

Why? Apart from your say-so?

Once you decide that you dislike a group, you start blaming them for things that they may not even have done. This is hardly exceptional or unusual, and it certainly does not indicate that one is unrelated to the other.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

The problem they are attempting to convey is that some forms of Christianity had, over centuries, especially in the German states, daemonized Jews based on religious grounds.

Even if we assume the Nazis themselves did not kill Jews because of their religion, Jew hating had already been around for hundreds of years, was promoted by Christian sects, thus making the Jew hating easier. It gave it a fertile ground simply to blame them for something else because Jews were already disliked anyway.

Lutheranism already popularized what was later exploited by blaming other, unrelated problems on Jews.

[Kanastrous]

It's like you're not listening to a word I said.

*shrug* I could just as easily make the same complaint.

Let's go again. If Lutheran anti-semitism is religiously-founded, and centred around the idea of Jews as the murderers and rejecters of Jesus; and modern Nazi anti-semitism is centred around the Jews as a racial group, and centred around the idea of Jews as international manipulators and conspiracists, there is a clear disparity between the two.

The disparity to which you are pointing, doesn't matter.

If you were describing a rational, carefully-thought-out, clear-headedly-examined-in-light-of-day series of arguments and decisions, that would be one thing. But that is not the kind of phenomena we're talking about.

What we're talking about is Jew-hatred-for-the-sake-of-Jew-hatred. Its core, its sustaining force, its basic essence is hatred-of-the-other, and whether at any given time that hatred is being underwritten by Catholic prejudices, by Protestant prejudices, by Volkische sentiment, by theories of racial competition, or by fantasies of international conspiracy does not matter.

Saying that the anti-semite who argues using religious motivation, is in any important way different from the anti-semite who argues using eugenics, misses the point, which is that they are both beginning from the position of Jew-hatred, and simply finding different arguments in order to back-fill in support for that hatred.

The fact that Nazis in the 1930s constructed a particular anti-semitism rooted in an appeal to "science,' does not alter the fact that they are merely applying different tools in order to exploit existing currents of anti-semitism that were around for a long, long time, and the origins and specific guise of that older anti-semitism is completely beside the point, when it comes to continuity.

[General Zod]

And here, just for you, is Ian Kershaw on Hitler's anti-semitism. From "Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris" p125

Hitler's well known reply to Gemlich, dated 16 September 1919, is his first recorded written statement abou the "Jewish Question". He wrote that anti-semitism should be based not on religion but on "facts", the first of which was that Jewry was a race, not a religion. Emotive antisemitism would produce pogroms, he continued; antisemitism based on "reason" must, on the other hand, lead to the systematic removal of the rights of Jews. "Its final aim, " he concluded "must unshakeably be the removal of the Jews altogether"

The Gemlich letter reveals for the first time key basic elements of Hitler's Weltanschauung which from them on remained unaltered to the last days in the Berlin bunker: antisemitism resting on race theoryl and the creation of a unifyinh nationalism founded on the need to combat the external and internal power of the Jews

There's a word for this line of thinking. It's called "rationalization". If you start with a premise that was originally caused by religion and try to justify it later on with something else, that doesn't mean it isn't any less rooted in religion. Creationists pull this exact same type of bullshit but nobody but an imbecile would argue their views aren't founded in religion.

[Androsphinx]

Admiral Kanos said:

Once you decide that you dislike a group, you start blaming them for things that they may not even have done. This is hardly exceptional or unusual, and it certainly does not indicate that one is unrelated to the other.

Boyish-Tigerlily said

Even if we assume the Nazis themselves did not kill Jews because of their religion, Jew hating had already been around for hundreds of years, was promoted by Christian sects, thus making the Jew hating easier. It gave it a fertile ground simply to blame them for something else because Jews were already disliked anyway.

I would not disagree with either of the above. What you are both saying is that Medieval anti-semitism, which was primarily religious in nature, shifted over time into a more socio-cultural anti-semitism. This is precisely Goldhagen's thesis, to which I refered in my first post on the subject:

Well, the linkage between Christianity and the Holocaust is fairly remote (not ignoring Goldhagen et al).

My point was, and remains, that the link between the two differs in two respects from the other example of Christianity and the Crusades. Firstly, the link is not direct - antisemitism goes through a number of permutations between the 1450s and 1930s; and secondly it is not causal in anywhere near the same way - there are a multiplicity of other factors involved in both the ideology of eliminationist antisemitism, and its realisation in the Holocaust, which have nothing to do with Christianity. While different historians place different emphases on different factors, as I mentioned before the generally-respected historian who has gone most far (and has also written a virulent book attacking the Catholic Church's silence during the Holocaust- another matter) is Goldhagen, who still takes the link to medieval anti-semitism considerably less far. #

Do you not see that the argument "Centuries of Christian anti-semitism, which then shifted to another, extra-religious form, was one of several contributing factors to popular support for the Holocaust, which in turn was responsible for the commission and accomplishment of the Holocaust" is a lot more convoluted than "The Pope told the European leaders to go and liberate the Holy Land from the infidels"?

Another argument in this direction, which I mentioned earlier as well, is that the Holocaust is estimated to have killed 9-11 million people. Most of the non-Jewish victims were killed for explicitly racial-theory-based reasons - the Slavs, gypsies and mentally ill.

General Zod said:

If you start with a premise that was originally caused by religion and try to justify it later on with something else, that doesn't mean it isn't any less rooted in religion.

Well, we've come a long way from where we started, haven't we? Let's see what you said on Thursday:

You're seriously suggesting that there's no to little relationship when one of the excuses frequently used was "The Jews killed Jesus?"

Now, you seem to accept that this was -not- used as an excuse during the Holocaust. Thanks for letting me know.

You also said:

The reigning sentiment at the time was that the Jews killed Jesus among the common populace. So it was retardedly easy to use that idea against the Jewish people.

You seem to have accepted now that they didn't use that claim

And you also said, based on a quote from Hitler:

How the fuck does anyone interpret this as the anti-semitism being anything but religiously motivated?

You now seem to have accepted that Hitler's anti-semitism from 1919 was non-religious in nature, and so your mischaracterisation of MK was mistaken. Nice of you to say so.

To be fair, you did also say

It's called "rationalization". If you start with a premise that was originally caused by religion and try to justify it later on with something else, that doesn't mean it isn't any less rooted in religion.

Which seems to be a varient of what was said above (with which I never disagreed), with perhaps the variation that Hitler's own anti-semitism was originally religious, and was later "rationalised" - that Hitler was a microcosm of the historical development of anti-semitism. You have, of course, no evidence for this, which is why it's only possible that you're making it - I don't want to put words in your mouth.

And Kanastros said

What we're talking about is Jew-hatred-for-the-sake-of-Jew-hatred. Its core, its sustaining force, its basic essence is hatred-of-the-other, and whether at any given time that hatred is being underwritten by Catholic prejudices, by Protestant prejudices, by Volkische sentiment, by theories of racial competition, or by fantasies of international conspiracy does not matter.

Saying that the anti-semite who argues using religious motivation, is in any important way different from the anti-semite who argues using eugenics, misses the point, which is that they are both beginning from the position of Jew-hatred, and simply finding different arguments in order to back-fill in support for that hatred.

The fact that Nazis in the 1930s constructed a particular anti-semitism rooted in an appeal to "science,' does not alter the fact that they are merely applying different tools in order to exploit existing currents of anti-semitism that were around for a long, long time, and the origins and specific guise of that older anti-semitism is completely beside the point, when it comes to continuity.

You seem to now be taking things further that am I, although I'm not sure that you realise it. You're arguing for an essentially psychological cause of anti-semitism, and that religion was one of several manifestations of this underlying sentiment, to the point where you say that "the specific guise of that older anti-semitism is completely beside the point when it comes to continuity". Needless to say, if anti-semitism is psychological in its causes, then the particularly religious nature of a specific period of anti-semitism can hardly be attributed directly to religion, a fortiori the several-centuries-removed anti-semitism which once came from religion.

[Androsphinx]

Just to add - I originally called the link between Christianity and the Holocaust "remote". What I meant was that the standard intentionalist chain of events, while allowing a place for German anti-semitism, does not give it primacy or huge weight. The functionalists give it more weight, but only a minority of those consider it to have been a moving force, and fewer consider the anti-semitism of the 1930s and 40 to have a causal relationship with previous manifestations of the same phenomenon. And even if you accept all of that, including a causal linkage, you still haven't shown (as Kanastros pointed out) that Christianity, rather than deeper psychological and social factors which manifest in different periods in different ways, was to blame.

All history to a certain extent is guesswork and speculation. But you should be aware that the position that "Christian antisemitism was a crucial driving force in the comission and carrying out of the Holocaust" is not really a mainstream one amongst historians of the period. I don't know what gives people the confidence to maintain that it is,

Grotesquely simplified and somewhat distorted, the most accepted (moderate intentionalist) version of events goes like this:

(Medieval social and religious anti-semitism) + (various other social, philosophical, "scientific" and cultural motivations)

+

Modern German eliminationist antisemitism (small minority of larger anti-semitic feelings)

=

Hitler's eliminationist anti-semitism

+ (extreme paranoia, delusional behaviour and fear of communist/capitalist oppostion)

=

Hitler's emphasis and insistence on a "Final Solution"

+ (development of power directly around Hitler, Nazi court power-politics, constraints of war, opportunities provided by war)

=

Decision to implement the Holocaust

+ Ignorance and complicity of "Ordinary Germans" (for a variety of social, psychological and ideological reasons - one of which was anti-semitism, which was linked to but no longer predominantely based on Christian anti-semitism)

=

The Holocaust

[mr friendly guy]

Dumb question that's not entirely off topic...

What's a "tu quoque fallacy" in 25 words or less?

Ad hominem tu quoque is the fallacy where an you dismiss an opponents argument based on the fact that he is a hypocrite. (Whoo hoo, only 23 words).

For example a parent telling her kids not to smoke because it damages health then goes and starts lighting up a few fags straight after.