Originally Posted by nomad84

What I meant when I said "Christian in the American sense" is evangelical Christianity, exemplified by such denominations as Southern Baptists or Pentecostalists. Those exist only in the US, and are completely foreign to continental Europe. Christianity in continental Europe (and Britain to a lesser degree) is dominated by traditional denominations (Catholicism, Lutheranism and Orthodoxy) who obviously are strongly pro-government.

Foreign Affairs November/December 2010

A Globalized God by Scott M. Thomas



"According to a 2006 report by the Center for the Study of Global Christianity, the number of evangelicals worldwide, including Pentecostals, is estimated to range from 250 million to 688 million. After Catholics, Pentecostals represent the largest single group of Christians. They live predominantly in Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, the Phillippines, and the United States, but they also enjoy a presence in Chile, Ghana, Guatemala, South Africa, and South Korea."

Originally Posted by nomad84

That's largely true, but on a few issues, mainly immigration, their hold on power seems to be loosening, since even a few Boomers start to realize that what they called multiculturalism failed. On top of that, GenX'ers, GenY'ers and first-wave Millies are to a large degree no longer willing to atone for Nazi crimes, since with the way left-wing Boomer teachers emphasized them, they reached just the opposite of what they wanted. The white guilt crap no longer works. On most other issues the results of the last Awakening (and the one before, as far as it concerned the establishment of a welfare state) are IMO permanent.

Has Multiculturalism accomplished anything constructive?

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Has Multiculturalism accomplished anything constructive?

Depends on if you're talking about teaching non-European empires in a World History class or if you're talking about making Howard Zinn and his ilk required reading.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Foreign Affairs November/December 2010

A Globalized God by Scott M. Thomas



"According to a 2006 report by the Center for the Study of Global Christianity, the number of evangelicals worldwide, including Pentecostals, is estimated to range from 250 million to 688 million. After Catholics, Pentecostals represent the largest single group of Christians. They live predominantly in Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, the Phillippines, and the United States, but they also enjoy a presence in Chile, Ghana, Guatemala, South Africa, and South Korea."

None of these countries is European. They can believe what they want to, but as a German I don't care since evangelical Christianity does not stand a chance here. And it never will, believe me.

Originally Posted by nomad84

What I meant with the term "non-factor" is that the opinion of either the Catholic church or the Lutheran church (which is extremely liberal here) don't have much weight in public discourse. There are practising Christians, that's true, but as a rule, most of them tend to be center-right on the German political scale, which makes them left-wingers on the American political scale.

And the party they vote for is called the Christian Democrats. So again, you are exaggerating a bit. My point here, in general, is that there is an exaggerated view perpetuated by people on both sides of the Atlantic. It has become a stereotype for the simple-minded that America is thoroughly religious and Europe is thoroughly secular. Neither is true. The real difference is in the governmental systems and political history.

As a rule, fiscal conservativism does not exist in Germany, and it did not exist before WWII as well. Once Bismarck created the German welfare state, it was universally accepted, and if any party had tried to change anything about that, it would have meant a death sentence at the polls for them. Germany being a welfare state is even enshrinend in our constitution, and that article is unchangeable on top of that.

Obviously, the Nazis were socialists as well. Which is why I reject their classification as "right wing". But the timing of when the socialist transformation took place in different countries is not really the point. The fact that European politics is so dominated by the left is what accounts for the majority of the differences between Europe and the U.S. The rest of it is a result of the long history of Europe that America consciously tried to wipe the slate clean of when it became independent, and start from scratch.

About social conservativism you are right, however. WWII pretty much killed it off, and the 68ers delivered the coup de grace.

...

That's largely true, but on a few issues, mainly immigration, their hold on power seems to be loosening, since even a few Boomers start to realize that what they called multiculturalism failed. On top of that, GenX'ers, GenY'ers and first-wave Millies are to a large degree no longer willing to atone for Nazi crimes, since with the way left-wing Boomer teachers emphasized them, they reached just the opposite of what they wanted. The white guilt crap no longer works. On most other issues the results of the last Awakening (and the one before, as far as it concerned the establishment of a welfare state) are IMO permanent.

In my experience, whenever someone makes that kind of statement about anything (things will always be the way they are now), it's probably about to change. That mentality existed in the U.S. before 9/11, and it has taken a long time for it to slowly bleed out.

Originally Posted by nomad84

None of these countries is European. They can believe what they want to, but as a German I don't care since evangelical Christianity does not stand a chance here. And it never will, believe me.

I am sure that "American style" evangelical and Pentecostal churches and groups exist in Germany. They are everywhere in Europe as far as I know, but you must also remember that the existence of established state churches makes it hard for competing groups to operate. There are a lot of deliberate legal barriers. Which of course, is why groups like the Puritans originally left England for America.

I also suspect that your understanding of evangelicalism, like your view of other aspects of American society, is heavily influenced by left wing media caricatures.

The Nazis were no more socialists than North Korea is a "Democratic People's Republic". There were a some rank-and-file Nazis in the SA that had socialist tendencies, but they were purged when Hitler took control of the German state. The Nazis were fully backed by the capitalist elites, even some AMERICAN capitalist elites, like a certain Prescott Bush.

Originally Posted by Odin

The Nazis were no more socialists than North Korea is a "Democratic People's Republic". There were a some rank-and-file Nazis in the SA that had socialist tendencies, but they were purged when Hitler took control of the German state. The Nazis were fully backed by the capitalist elites, even some AMERICAN capitalist elites, like a certain Prescott Bush.

While there is always propaganda inherent in the use of language by totalitarian regimes, the Nazis were not insincere in calling themselves "National Socialists":

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

To rescue Germany from the effects of the Great Depression, Nazism promoted an economic Third Position; a managed economy that was neither capitalist nor communist.[15][16] The Nazis accused communism and capitalism of being associated with Jewish influences and interests.[17] They declared support for a nationalist form of socialism that was to provide for the Aryan race and the German nation economic security, social welfare programs for workers, a just wage, honour for workers' importance to the nation, and protection from capitalist exploitation.[18]

...

The self-identification term, used by exponents of the ideology past and present is National Socialism and adherents describe themselves as National Socialists. For instance the best known organisation expousing this system, the German party led by Adolf Hitler was called the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German abbreviation: NSDAP). Similarly, the second volume of Mein Kampf is entitled The National Socialist Movement.[19] According to Joseph Goebbels in an official exposition of the ideology, the logic behind the synthesis of Nationalism and Socialism as represented in the name, was to "counter the Internationalism of Marxism with the nationalism of a German Socialism".

If you really want to understand what Nazism and Fascism were about (rather than delude yourself into believing they were indistinguishable from American conservatives and the Republican Party), you need to understand things like:

Third Position
Corporatism
Fascism

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Fascism is anti-communist, anti-democratic, anti-individualist, anti-liberal, anti-parliamentary, anti-bourgeois, anti-proletarian and anti-conservative. It entails a distinctive type of anti-capitalism and is typically, with a few exceptions, anticlerical.

Simply put, the Nazis, Fascists and other similar movements had no concern at all for the interests of private businesses and corporations, and viewed unbridled capitalism as a destructive, exploitative force. They believed, at a minimum, in state control of vital industries, and more often outright state ownership.

Where they diverged most sharply from the Marxists/communists/socialists was in their nationalism, as opposed to the internationalism of those groups. Economic policy was a secondary consideration, and they were more than willing to appropriate the economic views of the far left. Thus the name:

National Socialism.

It is an accurate, descriptive term for what they believed in, although their ideological reasons for the"socialist" part of it were different from those of the pure left.

I remember seeing a post on here earlier (can't find it now) saying that Ireland is already in the 1T High. But we and Europe just entered the 4T a few years ago, and we'll be in it for another 15-20 years. Is it possible for Ireland to already be in the next era? It seems a little ahead.

Originally Posted by 92man

I remember seeing a post on here earlier (can't find it now) saying that Ireland is already in the 1T High. But we and Europe just entered the 4T a few years ago, and we'll be in it for another 15-20 years. Is it possible for Ireland to already be in the next era? It seems a little ahead.

No, I think Ireland is on the Western cycle, their 2T was "The Troubles". The recent economic crisis there was their 4T catalyst.

Originally Posted by Odin

No, I think Ireland is on the Western cycle, their 2T was "The Troubles". The recent economic crisis there was their 4T catalyst.

There are a lot of reasons why that wasn't a 2T, but one of the most objective & easiest to show is the unemployment rate. The current economy may suck, but it is nothing like the 1980s to early 1990s. The real growth between then and now is also nothing like a 3T - because it was real growth and most people have a much higher standard of living than they did a few turnings ago. There's no such thing as nostalgia for the 80s & 90s like we have in America.

The other problem is that there wasn't a whole lot of religious motivation on the Republican side. It was loyalists in England's 2T who founded religiously-based militias. For the loyalists, The Troubles was supposed to be an easy demonstration of national superiority - for the Republicans it was a matter of cultural survival. Many American publications & observers framed this as a religious issue at the time, but this was our own 2T projection and annoys people who actually experienced it.

And the further you go back, the more obvious it is that they don't sync up. Ireland fought for independence in the 1910s to 1920s (4T), and experienced a massive economic boom under a restrictive/conformist social environment in the 1930s (1T). It was in the '40s & '50s that religious institutions advanced and women won greater rights in society (2T), then the late 50s & 60s that folks ignored growing problems (3T) until all hell broke loose and the economy experienced more than a decade of decline (4T).

That was, of course, followed by another rapid economic expansion (1T) which eventually stalled out and is now leading to increasing protests & religious reflection (2T).

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

There are a lot of reasons why that wasn't a 2T, but one of the most objective & easiest to show is the unemployment rate. The current economy may suck, but it is nothing like the 1980s to early 1990s. The real growth between then and now is also nothing like a 3T - because it was real growth and most people have a much higher standard of living than they did a few turnings ago. There's no such thing as nostalgia for the 80s & 90s like we have in America.

The other problem is that there wasn't a whole lot of religious motivation on the Republican side. It was loyalists in England's 2T who founded religiously-based militias. For the loyalists, The Troubles was supposed to be an easy demonstration of national superiority - for the Republicans it was a matter of cultural survival. Many American publications & observers framed this as a religious issue at the time, but this was our own 2T projection and annoys people who actually experienced it.

And the further you go back, the more obvious it is that they don't sync up. Ireland fought for independence in the 1910s to 1920s (4T), and experienced a massive economic boom under a restrictive/conformist social environment in the 1930s (1T). It was in the '40s & '50s that religious institutions advanced and women won greater rights in society (2T), then the late 50s & 60s that folks ignored growing problems (3T) until all hell broke loose and the economy experienced more than a decade of decline (4T).

That was, of course, followed by another rapid economic expansion (1T) which eventually stalled out and is now leading to increasing protests & religious reflection (2T).

I think you are right.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I think you're missing the larger picture, as well as throwing in a helping of bias.

First, there are still quite a few Christians in Europe. 63% of Germans identify themselves as Christians, even if their level of observance is debatable. So you are exaggerating in that regard, although what you say is true at the national political/social/cultural/governmental level. The difference there is in the European history of established churches intertwined with government. In the U.S., because of our system, religion is much more likely to act as a critic of government, as opposed to a partner.

In addition to what nomad84 wrote above, I could mention that Nietzsche's statement has proven to be correct in as much as Christianity in Europe has been in steady retreat ever since. Whatever outbursts of European religious sincerity you can see during the 20th century (Greatest and Silent generation intellectuals going catholic revival or the enthusiasm, pomp and circumstance of Vatican II, for instance), it nevertheless is a matter of remnant elements in big picture decline, and I see no reason for this trend to reverse itself.
It might be said that unlike in the US, Europeans have drawn the scientific conclusions about the impossibility of religion, and rather than escaping the existential pains involved, have opted for remaining intellectually honest to themselves. Maintaining the church and its institutions, however, is of course a matter of spiritual refinement, cultural heritage and identity that is of outmost importance also to atheists like myself. It's just that the Christian "message" and claims of veracity should not be taken seriously as such, especially not if you are really sincere about calling yourself a conservative. After all, our deepest roots are not fundamentally dependent on Christianity to begin with, but rather on people who in their moment of doom wrote lines like these: "Ti mythodes kai aiedes skotos tyrannesei ta epi ge kallista" (A certain mysterious and impenetrable darkness shall repress the greatest beauty of the Earth).

Nota bene though that political correctness certainly is extremely unscientific in nearly all its claims (beginning with a morally defined statement, then trying to find justification for it) and I'm not saying it is a welcome substitution for religion, even though PC-ism works exactly like religion for large parts of the European mainstream and establishment.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

While there is always propaganda inherent in the use of language by totalitarian regimes, the Nazis were not insincere in calling themselves "National Socialists":



If you really want to understand what Nazism and Fascism were about (rather than delude yourself into believing they were indistinguishable from American conservatives and the Republican Party), you need to understand things like:

Third Position
Corporatism
Fascism



Simply put, the Nazis, Fascists and other similar movements had no concern at all for the interests of private businesses and corporations, and viewed unbridled capitalism as a destructive, exploitative force. They believed, at a minimum, in state control of vital industries, and more often outright state ownership.

Where they diverged most sharply from the Marxists/communists/socialists was in their nationalism, as opposed to the internationalism of those groups. Economic policy was a secondary consideration, and they were more than willing to appropriate the economic views of the far left. Thus the name:

National Socialism.

It is an accurate, descriptive term for what they believed in, although their ideological reasons for the"socialist" part of it were different from those of the pure left.

This was just about the best brief, most accurate description of the matter that I have yet come across.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

In addition to what nomad84 wrote above, I could mention that Nietzsche's statement has proven to be correct in as much as Christianity in Europe has been in steady retreat ever since.

Of course, Nietzsche was also a deranged syphilitic who was a primary inspiration for the Nazi conception of a "master race"...

Whatever outbursts of European religious sincerity you can see during the 20th century (Greatest and Silent generation intellectuals going catholic revival or the enthusiasm, pomp and circumstance of Vatican II, for instance), it nevertheless is a matter of remnant elements in big picture decline, and I see no reason for this trend to reverse itself.

When I said that things are rarely "permanent" I was referring more generally to social norms, although it applies to just about everything.

It might be said that unlike in the US, Europeans have drawn the scientific conclusions about the impossibility of religion,

The problem with that statement is that there are no such scientific conclusions.

and rather than escaping the existential pains involved, have opted for remaining intellectually honest to themselves. Maintaining the church and its institutions, however, is of course a matter of spiritual refinement, cultural heritage and identity that is of outmost importance also to atheists like myself. It's just that the Christian "message" and claims of veracity should not be taken seriously as such, especially not if you are really sincere about calling yourself a conservative. After all, our deepest roots are not fundamentally dependent on Christianity to begin with, but rather on people who in their moment of doom wrote lines like these: "Ti mythodes kai aiedes skotos tyrannesei ta epi ge kallista" (A certain mysterious and impenetrable darkness shall repress the greatest beauty of the Earth).

Atheism is as much a matter of faith as theism. From a materialistic, scientifically careful point of view based solely on empirical evidence, agnosticism is the only honest position. Anything beyond that is in the realm of faith.

I do not dispute that the percentage of Europeans who genuinely believe in and practice Christianity is significantly smaller than in the U.S. and many other places around the world. My point is simply that there is exaggeration involved, not least because the advocates of atheism are determined to create a social environment that discourages differing points of view.

Nota bene though that political correctness certainly is extremely unscientific in nearly all its claims (beginning with a morally defined statement, then trying to find justification for it) and I'm not saying it is a welcome substitution for religion, even though PC-ism works exactly like religion for large parts of the European mainstream and establishment.

The summary of all of the above, and previous posts I made, is that atheism, political correctness, environmentalism and so forth form the religion of the far left. And it is no less a religion than any other religion. Which merely reiterates what I said before: that all of this is a result of the dominance of the political left in Europe vs. a slightly weaker position in the U.S.

LOL, Nietzsche was crazy for only the final years of his life, and he didn't "inspire" the Nazis, inane popularization of his ideas by his anti-Semetic sister was the cause of that.

Oh, and most atheists ARE agnostics.

Originally Posted by Odin

LOL, Nietzsche was crazy for only the final years of his life, and he didn't "inspire" the Nazis, inane popularization of his ideas by his anti-Semetic sister was the cause of that.

Oh, and most atheists ARE agnostics.

And many argue that he did not have syphilis.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Simply put, the Nazis, Fascists and other similar movements had no concern at all for the interests of private businesses and corporations, and viewed unbridled capitalism as a destructive, exploitative force. They believed, at a minimum, in state control of vital industries, and more often outright state ownership.

Where they diverged most sharply from the Marxists/communists/socialists was in their nationalism, as opposed to the internationalism of those groups. Economic policy was a secondary consideration, and they were more than willing to appropriate the economic views of the far left. Thus the name: National Socialism...

-I like to explain it to "progressives" in a different way, with this challenge:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin

...Coughlin's support for Roosevelt and his New Deal faded later in 1934, when he founded the National Union for Social Justice (NUSJ), a nationalistic worker's rights organization which grew impatient with what it viewed as the President's unconstitutional and pseudo-capitalistic monetary policies...

Among the articles of the NUSJ, were work and income guarantees, nationalizing "necessary" industry, wealth redistribution through taxation of the wealthy, federal protection of worker's unions, and decreasing property rights in favor of the government controlling the country's assets for "public good." Illustrative of his disdain for capitalism is his statement that, "We maintain the principle that there can be no lasting prosperity if free competition exists in industry. Therefore, it is the business of government not only to legislate for a minimum annual wage and maximum working schedule to be observed by industry, but also to curtail individualism that, if necessary, factories shall be licensed and their output shall be limited."

...which do the above policies describe, that of "progressives" or of conservatives?

Which of the fascist Coughlin's policies do YOU disagree with?

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...67yKCycahDkKiN

What is your attitude toward people who excel you in the creation of wealth or in other accomplishments? Do you aspire to their excellence or do you seethe at it? Do you admire and celebrate exceptional achievement or do you impugn it and seek to tear it down?

...Elementally, there are two different personality types here. Where you come down reveals a lot not just about your politics - though political views flow from it - but about the orientation of your soul...

Originally Posted by Odin

Oh, and most atheists ARE agnostics.

I struggled with this one for a long time, but that was mostly because the "pop culture" definition of agnosticism as someone who has "not made up their minds" about the existence or non-existence of a supreme being (or beings) wasn't entirely accurate. And to make it worse, some dictionaries include multiple definitions of "agnostic" that don't agree with each other, that contradict whether or not an atheist can be an agnostic.

Here's an example, a definition of "agnostic" from Merriam-Webster:

a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Using the first part of this definition, an atheist can be agnostic; certainly one can deny the existence of a supreme being while acknowledging they can't prove the non-existence. Using the second part, agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive. As someone who likes precision in language, this one frustrates me.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

I struggled with this one for a long time, but that was mostly because the "pop culture" definition of agnosticism as someone who has "not made up their minds" about the existence or non-existence of a supreme being (or beings) wasn't entirely accurate. And to make it worse, some dictionaries include multiple definitions of "agnostic" that don't agree with each other, that contradict whether or not an atheist can be an agnostic.

Here's an example, a definition of "agnostic" from Merriam-Webster:

Using the first part of this definition, an atheist can be agnostic; certainly one can deny the existence of a supreme being while acknowledging they can't prove the non-existence. Using the second part, agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive. As someone who likes precision in language, this one frustrates me.

A dictionary will list the ways that a word is used. If a word is used in different ways that contradict each other, the definition will not be consistent.

Such is English. Deal.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

I struggled with this one for a long time, but that was mostly because the "pop culture" definition of agnosticism as someone who has "not made up their minds" about the existence or non-existence of a supreme being (or beings) wasn't entirely accurate. And to make it worse, some dictionaries include multiple definitions of "agnostic" that don't agree with each other, that contradict whether or not an atheist can be an agnostic.

Here's an example, a definition of "agnostic" from Merriam-Webster:

Using the first part of this definition, an atheist can be agnostic; certainly one can deny the existence of a supreme being while acknowledging they can't prove the non-existence. Using the second part, agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive. As someone who likes precision in language, this one frustrates me.

The first definition is Huxley's original definition, the later is a modern invention. I do not believe in a Higher Power, nor do a I believe the existence of such a being can be either proved or disproved. It is simply irrelevant to my life.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The summary of all of the above, and previous posts I made, is that atheism, political correctness, environmentalism and so forth form the religion of the far left. And it is no less a religion than any other religion. Which merely reiterates what I said before: that all of this is a result of the dominance of the political left in Europe vs. a slightly weaker position in the U.S.

So my only alternative if I'm an atheist is to side with the European PC left? Oh, come on! Faith and belief in God just doesn't matter to me nor to anyone I know.

I'm kind of surprised that you of all people, who after all is freed from blindfolds in so many areas, should cling to old religious superstitions. Well, never mind. I guess faith in some supreme being is existentially important to some people.

Originally Posted by Odin

LOL, Nietzsche was crazy for only the final years of his life, and he didn't "inspire" the Nazis, inane popularization of his ideas by his anti-Semetic sister was the cause of that.

Oh, and most atheists ARE agnostics.

Thanks.

Not that it should matter. We should be able to quote anyone if what they say is important or significant in order to highlight something.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

Thanks.

Not that it should matter. We should be able to quote anyone if what they say is important or significant in order to highlight something.

The Thing with Nietzsche is that when people use his "God is Dead" line they forget the second part of the sentence: "And we killed Him".

IMO he had a lot of good ideas, but I turn his "Master Morality vs. Slave Morality" on it's head. I say what he dismissively calls "Slave Morality" is, in fact, a posititive social advance. Classical Civilization did not value the life of an ordinary individual very much, nor did it value hard work. The later prevented it from having an industrial revolution.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

So my only alternative if I'm an atheist is to side with the European PC left? Oh, come on! Faith and belief in God just doesn't matter to me nor to anyone I know.

I'm kind of surprised that you of all people, who after all is freed from blindfolds in so many areas, should cling to old religious superstitions. Well, never mind. I guess faith in some supreme being is existentially important to some people.

No, it's not. Ayn Rand was a militant atheist, as are many of her followers today. Many right-libertarians are atheists. Now, it may be otherwise in Europe, but that's how it is in the States.

Also - many Heathens, possibly a majority, are politically on the right, if you're interested in Odin, Freya, et. al.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

No, it's not. Ayn Rand was a militant atheist, as are many of her followers today. Many right-libertarians are atheists. Now, it may be otherwise in Europe, but that's how it is in the States.

Also - many Heathens, possibly a majority, are politically on the right, if you're interested in Odin, Freya, et. al.

When I was in my Neo-Pagan phase in high school I was interested in Nordic Neopaganism unti I discovered, to my horror, that most of them seem to be RWers and virulent racists.