Polycarp wrote: “"The Nazi Holocaust was applied Christianity." is legally actionable.”

If it is legally actionable take out an action against me.

It is not religious vilification. It is history. Christianity has a record of hatred, persecution and intolerance of non-Christians.

The Holocaust was not a departure. It was in the tradition of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the conversion of Europe by force, the massacres and expulsion of Jews and Muslims from Christian territories, the wars of the Reformation and the other abuses of humanity by Christianity.

Hitler got his bigotry from Christianity. As a young boy, Hitler's most ardent goal was to become a priest. Much of his philosophy came from the Bible, and more influentially, from the Christian Social movement. Karl Lueger founded the Christian Social Party (CS). Lueger was known for his antisemitism, Adolf Hitler saw him as an inspiration for his own virulent hatred of anything Jewish. The CS was oriented towards the bourgeoisie and clerical-catholic; there were many priests in the party, including Chancellor Ignaz Seipel.
Hitler’s Christian inspired Jew hatred found fertile soil since the Catholic, Lutheran and Orthodox churches had been promoting Jew hatred for centuries.

When you try to make Christian Germany as non-Christian because you didn’t like what they did in WW2 you are playing fast and loose with the facts.

Polycarp wrote: “like 'Born Again' Bush he selects words which will advance his agenda.”

Bush and Hitler were both real Christians pursuing the Christian record of violence, hate and intolerance. You merely follow the Christian pattern of denying the Christian record and denying the Christianity of those Christians whose actions you don’t approve of.

The evangelical community in the United States supports Bush because he is one of them. The anti-Semitic Christian community in Germany supported Hitler because he was one of them.

I certainly wish that Christianity were a religion of compassion, peace and love rather than merely spouting the words.

I repeat: The Nazi Holocaust was applied Christianity. Sue me.

Dream on from your post, I am not sure if you are agreeing, disagreeing or just making noises.

The human life experience is a personal matter and one where people make gestures, good and bad, grand and infamous.

Ultimately we individually decide what sort of life we will live and possibly, what contribution we will make and how we would seek to be remembered.

I accept a strong personal responsibility for the things I do and influence, as I see them as being significant and material. Many people do not.

If I make a decision not to buy a pair of shorts as a protest against slave working conditions in Upper Volta do I show solidarity with the slave workers or does such denial of income to their masters increase their suffering?

I cannot work it out, when you can maybe call back and tell us.

As for me, I will continue to pursue ethics business and personal practices in Australia.

Grandstanding and ranting against the fact that the world has some bad people in it, helps no one.

Regarding Nazi’s… I thought a lot of core Nazi “theology” was founded in paganism / occultism (swastika runes etc) more than Christianity.

Pc you still miss my point, the need for compliance, through law, is only necessary because of the absence of individual righteousness.

I have to agree with Col's posts on this thread so far.

A set of laws whether via government or via religion still presents a choice for individuals. Being of a particular faith or being an atheist is irrelevant. For example a corrupt priest has made an individual choice not to obey the laws of his God.

A set of laws in themselves do not produce righteousness nor adherence. As Col wrote, goodness or righteousness has to come from within and it is because of this that certain safeguards, as the author states, are built-into the system.

For me these safeguards are best established in law than in religion. There are too many religions and perversions of religions to be able to safeguard a legislative framework for the common good.

Col Rouge of all people must understand the capitalist laws of Supply and Demand.
So long as we are all in the market for cheap clothing, countries that do not have strong laws against child labour will continue to supply that market.
How long has it been since Keating famously called for a 'level playing field'? Rather than so called 'free' trade agreements, we need fair trade agreements, with countries that have similar if not identical views on civil rights and obligations.
It can only be grossly hypocritical to have minimum work standards for Australians, but still happily trade with countries who have lower standards.
When we do this, we are saying: 'We don't expect our people to work for these conditions, but it's alright for you coolies, serfs and peasants (I actually used stronger -and sadly, more common- words than these, but they were disallowed) to work for us, and send your product to us'.
This allows us to use the same argument drug dealers use, to whit: 'I don't force them to use my product'.
We don't force them to sell to us at subsistance prices.
They could always just die, if the price isn't good enough.
An interesting editorial debate; the words I originally used were disallowed as profanity, yet 'coolies, serfs and peasants' went through.
As someone from the 'peasant' class, I find that rather profane.

Dear David

please have a peek at the trial transcript for the 2 Dannies.

You would find that they failed to make a distinction between "Moderate" and "Radical" muslims, but they simply made a broad baby out with the bathwater "all" Muslims kind of statement.

In your case, you have failed to link your accusation that the Holocaust was 'applied' Christianity to specific teachings in the New Testament.
For your statement to be:

a) True
b) Acceptable

It would need to be based on a sure foundation of fact and not opinion based on personal bitterness.

I am simply pointing out that what you said IS against the law as I understand it, and based on the trial of 2 Christians.

You are blaming all Christians for the holocaust by saying it was "applied Christianity."

In order for something to be "applied" it must be clearly defined.
You would need to support your assertion from the teaching and example of Jesus of Nazareth.

Knowing that you cannot do this without extreme misinterpretation, (as Hilter did with the cleansing of the temple- which any judge would recognize immediately) means I can confidently say that you should retract that statement ("The holocaust was applied Christianity") as it is tantamount to a non Jewish person saying "All Jews are bloodsucking parasites and that this is simply applied Judaism" when such an assertion can never be supported by the Torah.

This is exactly WHY it is important to link behavior to belief and accepted doctrine.

When evaluating "Christian" behavior it is essential to identify which sect/denomination/cult you are referring to.

Your statement was in every respect as bad (for Christians) as the worst things the Nazi's ever said about Jews.

Porky: << I am simply pointing out that what you said IS against the law as I understand it, and based on the trial of 2 Christians >>

True to form, Porky omits to mention that the two Christian Islamophobes got off on appeal. A bit like the homophobic Swedish pastor he used to rant about when he was BOAZ_David.

It's why I call him "Porky", of course. He's apparently unaware of the biblical dictum about bearing false witness.