[RedOrange823]

	Originally Posted by Megalomania To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	it was just an interesting observation that RedOrange would say only those qualities made her admire him.

They are the only traits I admire in Hitler, but certainly not the only traits I admire in Hitchens. I said that those traits alone were enough to make me admire him and were the traits I admired most. But to say those were the only traits? Hella no.

[Rudy]

	Originally Posted by Megalomania To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Besides the fact that he just happens to omit that Goebbels married in 1931, before the Nuremburg Laws were even passed

How is that relevant? The point being made was that the church was willing to excommunicate people for marrying protestants, but not for mass murder. When he was married isn't material...

---------- Post added 12-17-2011 at 03:57 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by RedOrange823 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I said that those traits alone were enough to make me admire him

Careful; now Megalomania might counter with a "you must also admire Hitler, then". The obvious counter to that is that there are many things about Hitler, which one probably need not name, that cancel out any admiration of his general character earned by those traits. To say the least.

[Megalomania]

	Originally Posted by RedOrange823 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	They are the only traits I admire in Hitler, but certainly not the only traits I admire in Hitchens. I said that those traits alone were enough to make me admire him and were the traits I admired most. But to say those were the only traits? Hella no.

I took your statement to mean those were the only traits necessary. My apologies.

---------- Post added 12-17-2011 at 04:01 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by Rudy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	How is that relevant? The point being made was that the church was willing to excommunicate people for marrying protestants, but not for mass murder. When he was married isn't material...

Read what I edited in. Goebbels wasn't excommunicated by decree like Hitchens implied. He excommunicated himself because he wanted to.

	Careful; now Megalomania might counter with a "you must also admire Hitler, then". The obvious counter to that is that there are many things about Hitler, which one probably need not name, that cancel out any admiration of his general character earned by those traits. To say the least.

Uh no? Lets not get ahead of ourselves here.

[Rudy]

	Originally Posted by Megalomania To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	He excommunicated himself because he wanted to.

If the church dictates that certain actions cause excommunication, that's still by dictate of the church. Excommunication isn't some magical thing that happens; the church is what decides what does and does not excommunicate. It remains the fact that cross-sect marriage was sufficient for excommunication, but mass murder was not.


I still want to know what interpretations were grossly inaccurate. Hopefully you're not just talking about the marriage thing.

[nowt]

Quite seriously not arguing. That's good. Godwin and variations thereof? Capitalize, for most serious non-argument. Pretentious handwaving at gross miscalculation for better, more pro-God spin with the triviality of the Church become center stage? Truly, not an argument--

Yeah. Write that book. It'll be class. Lower class, but still.

Originally Posted by Megalomania To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm quite serious about those qualities being applicable to Hitler, but it wasn't an attempt at argument (so not Godwin). I'm not comparing Hitchens to Hitler; it was just an interesting observation that RedOrange would say only those qualities made her admire him. Hitchens is guilty of godwinning ....(inaccurately I might add) Besides the fact that he just happens to omit that Goebbels married in 1931, before the Nuremburg Laws were even passed, his interpretations are grossly inaccurate.

[Megalomania]

	Originally Posted by Rudy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If the church dictates that certain actions cause excommunication, that's still by dictate of the church. Excommunication isn't some magical thing that happens; the church is what decides what does and does not excommunicate. It remains the fact that cross-sect marriage was sufficient for excommunication, but mass murder was not.

There was no persecution of Jews or mass murder in 1931. The state sanctioned persecution started with the passing of the Nuremburg Laws in 1934. You can't excommunicate a person who is excommunicated.

	I still want to know what interpretations were grossly inaccurate. Hopefully you're not just talking about the marriage thing.

His views on the Catholic nature of Fascism. Fascism has anti-Catholic roots. To say it is another name for the political movement of the Catholic right wing is just hyperbole.

---------- Post added 12-17-2011 at 04:28 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by nowt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yeah. Write that book. It'll be class. Lower class, but still.

You could write one too, but no one would understand it.

[nowt]

No one, meaning you. And Hitler.

	Originally Posted by Megalomania To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You could write one[,] too, but no one would understand it.

[Megalomania]

	Originally Posted by nowt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No one, meaning you. And Hitler.

And everyone on this forum who complains about your fustian writing style, which is borderline incomprehensible sometimes, although I admit you've improved as of late.

Have anything to add about Hitchens?

[nowt]

I wonder what traits most of them have in common. Or lack of. Regardless, don't give me credit for having improved your comprehension; it's doubtful you really have. Nice of you to stroke yourself, tho. Hitler would be proud--

What should I add about Hitchens... Oh, yes. Now that he's dead, there will be a parade of spineless fucks who swear they've poked holes in the holes in his arguments, but won't produce much in the way of refutation except some minor points due simple human error [sometimes drunken errors that still fall within a narrower margin of error than the common hitler comparer could dream] and they'll fellate each other gloriously--

Hitchens still dead. Retards still retarded.

	Originally Posted by Megalomania To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And everyone on this forum who complains about your fustian writing style, which is borderline incomprehensible sometimes, although I admit you've improved as of late. Have anything to add about Hitchens?

[Megalomania]

	Originally Posted by nowt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	but won't produce much in the way of refutation except some minor points due simple human error

Simple human error? I find it highly doubtful he managed to scrounge up that extremely obscure fact and not know that the excommunication wasn't directed by decree and that Goebbels was married in 1931 before any atrocities were even committed. It's not a minor point either because the guy knowingly misled people and no one catches it because he knows no one knows jack about Josef Goebbels. Compare fascism to Catholicism, spice up the evilness of the Catholic church with a false fact, and everyone jumps on the hate Catholicism bandwagon. Forget the fact that Catholics were the one group most likely to help Jews in Nazi Germany. Forget the fact that the Catholic Church only made a concordat with Hitler because they didn't want to be demolished by him. Forget that the Nazis sent priests to concentration camps in the thousands and removed crosses from schools and banned prayer. Yea, fascism is a fundamentally Catholic movement. I don't think so Christopher Hitchens. Like I said, sophist.

[nowt]

Look at the Godwin go. Hitler, Hitler, Hitler.

	Originally Posted by Megalomania To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	<snip unread>

Hitchens still dead. Pity you didn't think of this sooner.

[True Rune]

I didn't care for a lot of his views, but enjoyed the presentation of them. R.I.P.

[Megalomania]

	Originally Posted by nowt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Look at the Godwin go. Hitler, Hitler, Hitler. Hitchens still dead. Pity you didn't think of this sooner.

Like your idol, all style no substance.

[RedOrange823]

Originally Posted by Megalomania To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Compare fascism to Catholicism, spice up the evilness of the Catholic church with a false fact, and everyone jumps on the hate Catholicism bandwagon. Forget the fact that Catholics were the one group most likely to help Jews in Nazi Germany. Forget the fact that the Catholic Church only made a concordat with Hitler because they didn't want to be demolished by him. Forget that the Nazis sent priests to concentration camps in the thousands and removed crosses from schools and banned prayer. Yea, fascism is a fundamentally Catholic movement. I don't think so Christopher Hitchens. Like I said, sophist. Yea, fascism is a fundamentally Catholic movement. I don't think so Christopher Hitchens. Like I said, sophist.

	Originally Posted by Hitchens in the video you linked above
	Fascism, the original 20th century totalitarian movement is really, historically, another name for the political activity of the Catholic right-wing. There is no other name for it Francoism, Salazarism, what happened in Croatia...

Note the fascist states he lists above are not strictly Hitler-Nazi fascism.


Under Franco, Spain strictly enforced Catholicism:

Originally Posted by To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Catholicism was made the official religion of the Spanish State, which enforced Catholic social mores. The Catholic Church was established as the one religion of the Spanish State. The remaining nomads of Spain (Gitanos and Mercheros like El Lute) were especially affected. The Spanish State enforced Catholic behavior mainly by using a law (the Ley de Vagos y Maleantes, Vagrancy Act) enacted by Azaña.[24] Civil servants had to be Catholic, and some official jobs even required a "good behavior" statement by a priest. Civil marriages which had taken place under Republican Spain were declared null and void and had to be convalidated by the Catholic Church of Spain. Civil marriages were only possible after the couple made a public renunciation to the Catholic Church. Divorce, contraceptives and abortion were forbidden. From 1954 onwards, homosexuality, pedophilia, and prostitution were criminal offenses,[25] although the enforcement of this was seldom consistent.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
was Catholic. "He formally entered politics in the following years, joining the conservative Catholic Centre Party...Salazar's regime was rigidly authoritarian. He based his political philosophy around a close interpretation of Catholic social doctrine, much like the contemporary regime of Engelbert Dollfuß in Austria. The economic system, known as corporatism, was based on a similar interpretation of the papal encyclicals Rerum Novarum (Leo XIII, 1891) and Quadragesimo Anno (Pius XI, 1931), which was supposed to prevent class struggle and supremacy of economics. Salazar himself banned Portugal's National Syndicalists, a more true Fascist party. Salazar's own party, the National Union, was formed as a subservient umbrella organisation to support the regime itself, and was therefore lacking in any ideology independent of the regime. At the time many European countries feared the destructive potential of communism. Salazar not only forbade Marxist parties, but also revolutionary fascist-syndicalist parties."

------

	Originally Posted by Hitchens continued from video
	You can't quite say that about Hitler/National Socialism because that's also based on Nordic and Pagan blood myths and leader-worship and so on, though Hitler never repudiated his membership of the Church and prayers were said for him on his birthday every year until the very end by the Vatican...

Originally Posted by Hitchens, God Is Not Great (and basically the point he was making)

Facism-the precursor and model of National Socialism- was a movement that believed in an organic and corporate society, presided over by a leader or guide. (The 'fasces'-symbol of the 'lictors' or enforcers of ancient Rome-were a bundle of rods, tied around an axe that stood for unity and authority.) Arising out of the misery and humiliation of the First World War, fascist movements were in favor of the defense of traditional values against Bolshevism, and upheld nationalism and piety. It is probably not a coincidence that they arose first and most excitedly in Catholic countries, and it is certainly not a coincidence that the Catholic Church was generally sympathetic to fascism as an idea.

[CafeMachiavelli]

	Originally Posted by noblegas To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	With that said, why are people labeling him a brilliant thinker? What has he said that was profound , and unique.

It's not just the positions, but the nuances and style he added. His elaboration on the typical "atheism brought us Stalin" argument in God Is Not Great is quite impressive. It didn't help a lot, it's still one of the first arguments I get when debating secular societies, but it's a welcome addition to my intellectual arsenal.

His position on the war was disagreeable, but sometimes conflict in itself can be productive, so I wouldn't hold that against him.

[Megalomania]

	Originally Posted by RedOrange823 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Note the fascist states he lists above are not strictly Hitler-Nazi fascism. Under Franco, Spain strictly enforced Catholicism:

I'm aware Franco's fascist Spain was Catholic...Mussolini and Hitler were not Catholics. They detested Christianity. How does this heterogeneity reflect a movement that is fundamentally Catholic? The majority of fascists were anti-clerical and anti-catholic. It's not as if identifying two fascist Catholic regimes makes the fascist movement Catholic.

[RedOrange823]

The point I was making was that Hitchens never claimed that Hitler's fascism was fundamentally Catholic--only that fascism in it's earliest forms were based in Catholicism. Hence the line, "Fascism, the original 20th century totalitarian movement..." He even says that he can't quite say the same about Hitler. (Re-read the last part of my above post)

The entire point he was making was that the Catholic church did little to condemn what Hitler and Mussolini did. They even played nice with them (prayers were said for Hitler on his birthday by decree of the Vatican) all in the interest of self-preservation and, now that all is said and done, they haven't offered an apology and they never excommunicated anybody who was culpable in the slaughter of Jews.

Also, though they were both (arguably with Hitler) anti-Catholic, Hitler and Mussolini both drew on the Catholic church to gain support from their Catholic followers. They may have disliked the church, but were certainly aware that to gain its favor was to gain the favor of their people. But that is besides the point. Hitchens' main critique of the Catholic church in regards to WWII or the Holocaust was that not a single person was ever excommunicated for the atrocities committed.

His even larger point brought into context was that the Catholic church claims itself to be morally superior. His argument is How can they be morally superior given the fact that in the face of so dark a time, the best they did was stay "neutral" in the matter and the worst they did was play a political game hoping for favor if the fascists were to win? Morally superior entities should set examples when tried, not play games to see who wins out. They should, further, admit when they have been wrong (but, alas, to do so would undercut the whole "morally superior" thing) and apologize or right their wrongs.

[Imperator]

	Originally Posted by Megalomania To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I was specifically referring to his tirades against religion. I'm only superficially familiar with his political opinions.

"Religion is evil" therefore Hitler?

Come on, you're smarter than that.

[Rudy]

RedOrange has already laid out pretty clearly, in a beautiful post, how Hitchens never said that Nazism was a Catholic movement (said it wasn't quite explicitly), how he was referring to the early fascist movements, how the church was at best a limp noodle when it came to nazism, etc.

After all, as is
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, the church puts its own survival over the advancement of any moral principle.

From the link:

	Cardinal Pacelli said as much in August 1933 to Ivone Kirkpatrick, the British minister to the Vatican: “The spiritual welfare of 20 million Catholic souls in Germany was at stake, and that was the first and, indeed, only consideration” in agreeing to the concordat. The Holy See “had to choose between an agreement on [Nazi] lines and the virtual elimination of the Catholic Church in the Reich.”

And that ^, bear in mind, is only if you believe and grant the best of the possible motives to the vatican.

The only thing I want to add, Megalomania, in terms of your seeming upset with the dates surrounding Goebbels' marriage. The point being made by Hitchens with that fact consisted of only two points.

1) The Catholic Church considered marriage to a protestant a crime worth of excommunication.

2) The Catholic Church did not consider any atrocities committed by the national socialists to be crimes worthy of excommunication.

Actually, I would add that they did excommunicate all communists after the end of world war 2. Just for contrast.

That these events occurred a decade apart, events 1 and 2, I mean, is fully and completely irrelevant. Made even more irrelevant by the fact that marriage to a protestant was still an excommunicate-able offense during and after world war 2 and, I think, is still so now.

[nowt]

Which, Hitler or Hitchens? Which would you say suffered least for being touched by megalomania?--

Whichever one lived best with human error, I suspect. Unlike Jesus Christ.

	Originally Posted by Megalomania To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Like your idol[;] all style[,] no substance.

[Megalomania]

	Originally Posted by RedOrange823 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The point I was making was that Hitchens never claimed that Hitler's fascism was fundamentally Catholic--only that fascism in it's earliest forms were based in Catholicism. Hence the line, "Fascism, the original 20th century totalitarian movement..." He even says that he can't quite say the same about Hitler. (Re-read the last part of my above post)

No...he said fascism, in its original form, was another name for the political movement of the Catholic right-wing. Not that it is based on Catholicism, which I don't agree with either.

Secondly, Salazar isn't even technically considered Fascist . Being a far right movement doesn't = fascism. Franco and Salazar both came after Mussolini. Mussolini pretty much started what we know as the Fascism movement and he was anti-religious and so were most of his followers. To say it is originally a Catholic movement isn't correct either. Find me some historians or political scientists who agree with this interpretation.

A quote from Roger Griffin, a historian on Fascism "Griffin adds that ‘clerical fascism’ "should never be used to characterize a political movement or a regime in its entirety, since it can at most be a faction within fascism", while he defines fascism as "a revolutionary, secular variant of ultranationalism bent on the total rebirth of society through human agency"

	Also, though they were both (arguably with Hitler) anti-catholic

It is a fact the man was not Catholic by belief and detested Christianity.

	His even larger point brought into context was that the Catholic church claims itself to be morally superior. His argument is How can they be morally superior given the fact that in the face of so dark a time, the best they did was stay "neutral" in the matter...

The Pope has no divisions, that's how. Politically neutral, yes, behind the scenes not so much.

---------- Post added 12-17-2011 at 12:35 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Rudy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Actually, I would add that they did excommunicate all communists after the end of world war 2. Just for contrast.

Communism is also an atheistic movement - Fascism, not necessarily so.

---------- Post added 12-17-2011 at 12:37 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Imperator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	"Religion is evil" therefore Hitler? Come on, you're smarter than that.

Last I checked it was Hitchens who was using Hitler to further his agenda against Christianity and Catholicism in particular.

[Imperator]

	Originally Posted by Megalomania To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Last I checked it was Hitchens who was using Hitler to further his agenda against Christianity and Catholicism in particular.

Last I checked, Hitler only ever gets brought up in religious debates in conjunction with Stalin and Mao.

So is it Hitchens using Hitler, or is it Hitchens responding to a tired argument?
I haven't read his stuff, but I highly doubt Hitler takes up a significant role in Hitchens' crusade against Christianity....

[Megalomania]

	Originally Posted by Imperator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So is it Hitchens using Hitler, or is it Hitchens responding to a tired argument?

Becomes rather blurred after a while though, doesn't it?

[zibber]

Hey, someone died. Let's go incessantly nag people about how wrong they were about certain things they said before they were dead. Now is the absolute best time for that.

[Rudy]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hey, someone died. Let's go incessantly nag people about how wrong they were about certain things they said before they were dead. Now is the absolute best time for that.

Actually, as much as I adore Hitchens, and I truly do, it would be hypocritical to refuse to speak ill of the dead. He was the first in line to
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
of disgusting people like Jerry Falwell right after his death. I'm very glad that Hitchens did that, in the face of everyone talking about how "great" Falwell's legacy had been, but I can't then turn around and say that people shouldn't say bad things about Hitchens after his death.