I believe that the state Premier of Victoria will be
pushing for a yes vote on voluntary euthanasia in state
parliament next year. The Australian Medical Association
seems to be against this move.

How do the rest of you feel about this controversial issue?

Are you not ignoring doctor's advice with your comeback, Foxy?

How do you feel about COMPULSORY euthanasia for Australian politicians and other people who do not believe in individuals' rights to make decicions for themselves? I include doctors in that: like politicians, they try to control their customers instead of serving them. I'm glad you have chosen to ignore the doctor who said that OLO is bad for your health. Glad to see you back!

Dear TTBN,

Thanks for the "Welcome Back."

I've missed the Forum, and I'm happy to be back.

As for Voluntary Euthanasia? I'm having difficulty
coming to grips with this issue because of personal
experience with my mum who suffers from dementia.
She's had several falls recently and ended up with all
sorts of complications. When my brothers visited her
from interstate they felt that her medicine should be
stopped - because according to one brother - "It's only
the meds that are keeping her alive and she has
no quality of life." I disagreed strongly. Her meds were
simply keeping her comfortable. As for her quality of
life - She recognises us all on her good days, she does
react to things, and she seems to understand things as well.
I have my mum's "Power of Attorney," so I politely explained
things to my brother.

These are only some of the issues that worry me about
Euthanasia. Or put another way - "Where there's a will,
there's always a relative." The only time that I would
approve of Euthanasia is for terminally ill patients who
are suffering and in great pain. But even then, I would like
several opinions on the matter, and a panel and boundaries
put in place to protect the vunerable.

But perhaps that's what the state Premier has in mind for
Victoria. I'd like to find out more about what exactly they
do have in mind. It shall be interesting to also see if the bill
gets passed next year.

Btw - my mum is slowly improving. But that's dementia, I'm told.

I can see reasons why people want voluntary euthanasia. The problem is that just like the abortionist convinced the gullible that the debate was about that poor 14 year old girl who was raped so those pushing for euthanasia pretend it will remain volutary. Now we have around 80000 babies slaughtered largely due to convenience each year. Why would the euthanasia industry (yes it will become like abortion) do the same. People like Nitschke have been shown to have next to no ethics. There are some who genuinely believe it is better for people to opt to end their own life. Let them do it but don't legislate to open the can of worms.

G'day again, Foxy,

My view is that euthanasia should be available to those who want it. I respect those who don't want it, because that's freedom of choice; what I don't like is politicians making the decision based purely on their own feelings or beliefs. The vote was lost here in SA recently by a single vote, even though the general population were in favour of euthanasia for those wanting it.

I'm more interested in your mother, however. I don't think that it is correct that dementia patients improve (unless you were referring to problems from her falls). There are 12 conditions that can be confused with dementia or Alzheimer's, which is becoming more commonly diagnosed. Incorrect diagnoses are not as uncommon as sometimes thought, and an excellent neurologist who actually saved my life several years ago, advises me that there is never any improvement or recovery from dementia. I'm a complete layman on the matter, but is it possible that your Mother could have one of the 'false' dementias that can be treated?

Dear Foxy,

My mother went into a nursing home when my father was unable to care for her. She had had a number of falls, and my father was physically unable to keep lifting her. Although my mother's mind was ok when she first went into the nursing home she started to drift into dementia. She was aware of what was happening to her and said she wanted to die. Her deterioration continued until the last seven years of her life were spent in a completely vegetative state.

I wish that she had been helped to end her life when she said she wanted to die. I incorporated my feelings toward my mother in the nursing home in a story I wrote:

“He never could talk to his Mother when she could talk. He saw her now as she was the last time he visited Golden Hill, but he remembered her voice as he heard it in childhood. He saw the muddy green, unseeing eyes, "I've got eyes like a cat" but they were bright when she said it. He saw the aristocratic nose with gently flaring nostrils. When he was a child she would call attention to the shapely nose, "Isn't it a beautiful nose?" Sometimes she would say that in front of visitors, and little Barn would cringe. The last time he had seen the nose, it was the same chalky colour as the rest of the face. A year ago his cousin from Tyre had called Lefko. Somehow an attendant had let her fall from the bed. Mother landed on her face and broke her nose. The beautiful nose was broken, and there were dark circles under the eyes. She looked more alive than in years. Change. What would be the use of moving her to another nursing home? That could happen anyplace. Golden Hill had the best reputation. The nose was set, the bruises disappeared, and Mother stayed at Golden Hill.

continued

Runner,

I'm with you on abortion because the victim of abortion has no say in the matter, and I am not convinced that the abortee is a 'thing'; I do, however, believe that adult individuals should have control over their own lives and deaths.

Referring to you comments about Nitschke, I won't remark on your opinions of him but,as someone who has been a member of his organisation, I can say that there is no CONVENIENT, NON-FRIGHTENING, PLEASANT way to kill yourself LEGALLY in Australia. The only sure-fire way of ILLEGALLY doing away with your self easily is with with a drug used by vets to put down animals. All Exit International will do is tell you where to get it from overseas. If you import it, you commit a criminal act, and if caught, you may be prosecuted. To give them their due EI, does tell people this; they also tell you that you might get a bottle of water instead of the drug (same price of course), but it can be tested so you don't have a dud way out in the cupboard down the track if you decide to see yourself off. There is nothing bad or evil about Nitschke or his organisation, but people thinking that joining up will help them without fuss into the arms of the Angels will be disappointed.

Even if God-impersonating politicians listened to the people, as they are supposed to, there would be so much beaurocracy involved, people wanting euthanasia would die naturally while waiting for the green light.

continued

She hadn't worn glasses for so long that the little dents on the sides of the bridge had disappeared. She used to rub her nose so the dents would go away when she took off her glasses. He saw the lashes. They were whiter than the chalky skin. The fine hair was neatly brushed. White sheets, white blanket, chalky skin, silky white hair, pale lips around a black hole, black nostril openings. He saw them as he would those of a dentist. He saw the long white hairs on the chin (if she had been aware of them, she would have been horrified), the slight bulge under the blanket and the arthritic hand clutching a roll of cloth. White and black. For years he had thought of his Mother as already dead.”

My wife’s mother became a widow and then had had a stroke which affected one side. She managed to get onto the roof and jumped. It was winter in Norway, and she landed in a heap of snow. Although injured she survived. She also should have been helped to die.
I am now 91 with no medical condition except hay fever. When I start to lose it I think I would like to have something available to peacefully end my existence at a time of my choice.

My wife and I belong to the voluntary euthanasia society which works to make that possible.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/people/538537?c=people

I think runner and Nitschke both have a strong sense of ethics. One problem is that people with a strong sense of ethics sometimes are unwilling to admit that those whose ethics differ from theirs are also ethical.

I do actually have some sympathy for your position David f. Having seen the dishonest butchers who in America have sold unborn babies body parts I don't have faith in humanity like you.

Dear runner,

Thanks for your opinions. Much appreciated.

Dear ttbn,

Thank You for your concerns and suggestions. Unfortunately,
my mum does have dementia. She's had brain scans and its
been confirmed. I was referring to her improvement as
a result of her falls - not her dementia. I realise that
there's no improvement for that. However, I try to keep
her active (as does the nursing home) with being involved
in the various programs they have there. She loves music
therapy. I bought the nursing home several Andre Rieu
dvds - one especially was very popular amongst the
residents - including mum - entitled - "Home for Christmas."

Dear David F.,

Thank you so much for sharing your experiences with us.
Your writing is very moving and powerful. It has given me
a great deal to think about. I don't know what lies ahead.
I guess I shall have to deal with that situation as it arises.
For now, my mum seems to be doing all right - she does react to my visits. And is always happy to see me.
We'll see how she does in the future. I love her very much, and I
do want to do what is best for her. I would hate to make the
wrong decision though as to what she really wants. She's never
mentioned wanting to die though.

Dear David F.,

I've met Philip Nitschke and heard him speak on
several occasions. He scares me. And I'm not sure
whether I'd want his help to end my life. Or that
of anyone else. He struck me as being a bit too
passionate about his work.

Dear runner,

I feel there is a spark of decency and compassion in every human being. It may be hard to bring it out, but I think it’s there.

In war time every country makes propaganda to make the enemy sound so bad that people feel it’s right to destroy them. That sort of propaganda exists in peacetime, too. I am sceptical when I hear that kind of story, but apparently the sale of body parts of foetuses is something that happened and is happening.

http://www.snopes.com/fetal-tissue-sales/

Dear Foxy,

I have also met Philip Nitschke, and his intensity frightens me. I doubt that I would have reached 91 if I contained that much passion.

One of my heroes is the passionate John Brown who fought against slavery. He was hanged for treason. He was so devoted to his cause that he would not put butter on his bread. He regarded that as an indulgence that would divert funds that might be used in the fight against slavery.

Presiding over his hanging was Robert E. Lee who turned out to be a much bigger traitor leading an army against his country fighting for slavery. He died laden with honours. Like a corporation too big to fail he was not punished in any way for his great crimes.

' I feel there is a spark of decency and compassion in every human being. It may be hard to bring it out, but I think it’s there.'

David f

I have no disagreement with this statement. I also believe that each and every human has a price. Once a man sat next to a pretty young girl on a plane. He offered her a million dollars to spend the night. At first she was disgusted and horrified. After thinking it over she agreed to the mans request. Just before landing he said to her that he had changed his mind. He was only prepared to offer her $10. What do you think I am she protested in anger. That has already been established madam, he said, we are only arguing about the price. Jesus was the only One never up for sale.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

Euthanasia is a personal decision which each individual should organise and carry out under his or her own, sole responsibility, without exception.

In the absence of any clear indication or guidance from your mother in this respect, there is not much you can do about it.

If circumstances were such that you felt compelled to take the matter into your own hands, then, I’m afraid that, under the current state of our laws in Australia, you would be exposing yourself to a possible criminal charge of homicide – though the courts have tended to be somewhat indulgent with defendants over recent years, depending, of course, on the circumstances :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_Australia#Current-situation

My wife and I share David F’s approach to euthanasia. You might like to read an article I wrote on the subject that was later picked up by The Greens and included as submission 133 in their “Exposure draft of the Medical Services (Dying with Dignity) Bill 2014” :

http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=c1447c7d-6904-4d9e-a7d6-a67edd6fb115&subId=300148

With my very best wishes for as warm and gentle a future as possible for you and your mother, Foxy. You will both be in my thoughts – and I am sure I am not the only one, here on OLO.

.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

A little heart-warming encouragement from Europe :

http://youtu.be/Yfwlj0gba_k

.

Thank You all for contributing to this debate.

I realise that there are many sides to this discussion
and I appreciate so much your inputs.

Victoria's Premier Daniel Andrews according to The Age
has stated that Victoria is failing to allow people
with incurable conditions a dignified death and that the
state must have a conversation about euthanasia. The Age
tells us that more than half of Mr Andrews' Cabinet has
declared support for euthanasia indicating that Victoria
could be poised to introduce laws that would make it the
first Australian state to legalise the practice.

Mr Andrews said the recent death from cancer of his father
had challenged his previously held views against it.
He pointed out that if we search our conscience and we
search our own personal experience - we should come up with
what we feel is right for us and our loved ones. Most
importantly - we should be giving all the support, love, and
care that every person should be entitled to in the final
stages of their lives. What that support is will depend on
our personal circumstances.

Once again - Thank You for all your inputs, your honesty, and
openness. It helps a great deal. And is greatly appreciated.

Dear runner,

I believe that if Jesus existed and is not a complete myth that he had both a spark of goodness and a price like everyone else.

I've been reading a bit more on the proposed voluntary
euthanasia laws in Victoria. It seems that the laws will
only include the terminally ill. Which I guess excludes
those in severe pain, who are not dying.

I read about people in Canada who starved themselves so
that they would qualify for euthanasia. That seems very
cruel. The Premier and his Cabinet should look at what its
going to do before it passes any laws - Canada is one
example to examine. Should people who are suffering but not
dying - be excluded?

' I believe that if Jesus existed and is not a complete myth'

with all respects David f you can't expect to be taken seriously when you display such complete ignorance.

Dear runner,

I think you confuse your beliefs with knowledge.

DavidF,

Surely you are not denying the existence of Jesus Christ? You don't believe in his teachings, which is entirely your prerogative, but to deny his existence - a human figure of history, just like all of the other humans beings reported in his time of history, is more than a litle bizarre to me. You might as well say that nobody and nothing existed 2,000 years ago. Ignore all history. You have enjoyed a blissfully ignorant 91 years, it seems.

Foxy,

Yes, MRI's dont't lie, and your mother is probably happy, bless her. The medical profession is not high on my list of admirables any more. I have suffered a great deal of angst and unwanted stigma over the past two years because of a mis-diagnosis and the nannying of a know-all GP, who is going to lose my patronage when the time is right. I'm not into suing people just to gain money, but I will never trust doctors again. I am fortunately in the late Autumn of life where 'experts' don't hold the power over me that they used to.

Dear ttbn,

Thanks for your kind words.

As for doctors? We're certainly at their mercy that's
for sure. Hopefully I've made the right choices in
our GP and specialists. Our GP is one of those rare
creatures who still does home visits when needed.
I do try not to impose on him too much and only
use the home visit when absolutely necessary.
My mother is well looked after
in the dementia wing of her nursing home. Our GP
is her doctor as well. Daily visits
and our involvement in the home keeps us informed as to
her treatment. Families of residents there are very good
people and we all look out for each other.

I must say that I feel very fortunate to be living in a
country where we are provided with such excellent health
care. Of course our family does have private health cover.
We've always subscribed to it - and I find it most helpful
now - as the need arises.

Dear ttbn,

I don't deny the existence of Jesus. He certainly may have existed. However, he may have been a legendary creation. I don't know. I don't think any of the miracles described in the New Testament ever happened. That is fiction. The Jesus described in the New Testament who produced miracles I am sure never existed.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

There is no definitive proof that Jesus existed, but possibly he did.

"Barbara Thiering wrote the book, "Jesus The Man:
A new interpretation from the Dead Sea Scrolls."
In her book Barbara Thiering presents her landmark
research into the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New
Testament. She provides a radically different history of
the life of Christ which sweeps away the miraculous and
superstitious elements associated with the origins of
Christianity." (Taken from the blurb of her book).

On page 390 - we're told that "Jesus, son of Joseph, a
descendant of King David through the Nathan line,
and of Mary. Jesus was conceived during his parents
betrothal period before their legal marriage, so was
regarded by the party of Hebrews as an extranuptial son
of Joseph. He was born in March 7 BC. For Hellenists in the
ascetic movement he was the legitimate David, and would
rule when the Kingdom came, either as an independent king, or
as a subordinate of the Herods...

It's an interesting book and well worth a read.

Dear Foxy,

You wrote: "Barbara Thiering wrote the book, "Jesus The Man: A new interpretation from the Dead Sea Scrolls." In her book Barbara Thiering presents her landmark research into the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. She provides a radically different history of the life of Christ which sweeps away the miraculous and superstitious elements associated with the origins of Christianity." (Taken from the blurb of her book)."

Without the miraculous and superstitious elements I don't think there is much left of Christianity.

Dear David F.,

From the Introduction to "Jesus The Man" :

"The virgin birth, the miracles, and the resurrection can
be viewed in an entirely new light ... They never were
literal events...nor were they myths, traditional legends,
as scholars often held. Something really did happen,
and what happened opens up a whole new understanding of
historical Christianity."

Reading the book will help towards understanding.

C.S. Lewis wrote: "I believe in Christianity as I believe
that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because
by it I see everything else."

I really don't think its right for atheists to ram their disbelief down others throats especially if those others don't ram their belief down theirs.
Talk about hypocrisy.

Dear T800,

Nobody can ram anybody's belief or disbelief down anybody's throat. We can only tell each other what we do or don't believe.

runner has a perfect right to tell of his views regarding religion, and I have a perfect right to tell of mine.

What I gather from your post is you approve of someone stating their beliefs but think atheists should keep quiet.

If someone is so uncertain of their religious beliefs that an atheist stating his or her views will upset them then they are on shaky ground.

Perhaps you should have a good look at yourself and your behaviour then david.
The topic is hardly about religion per se and it seems all you want to do is exactly what i described.

Foxy

when someone can show me that aboriginals have not got the same laws and rights as anyone else I will consider a vote to change the constitution. To me its just another con to fool people. In my experience with working with aboriginals they receive the same rights as anyone else. In many cases they receive far more than the wider population. Unfortunately many are brought up in totally dysfunctional families which are full of violence, alcholol and drugs. I don't see changing the constitution changing that situation. Already many have hatred of the whites drummed into them from history revisionist and folk lore. Winshuttle seems to be one who writes accurately on Australia's history. Unfortunately his accuracy is more than many academics and those who have a rosy picture of paradise before the British arrived can handle. I say leave the constitution alone unless someone can give a straight answer as to why change.

Dear runner,

This gives a straight answer:

http://www.theconversation.com/explainer-what-indigenous-constitutional-recognition-means-31770

There's more on the web that you can Google for yourself.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

You quoted C.S. Lewis, who wrote:

« I believe in Christianity as I believe
that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because
by it I see everything else »
.

To employ that well-known expression of Saul of Tarsus, C.S. Lewis is “looking through a glass darkly” (1 Corinthians 13: 12-13). By observing what he refers to as “everything else” through the lens of Christian dogma, he is getting a distorted image of reality.

No need for a lens of religious beliefs. Don’t you think ? Far better to look at “everything else” as it really is - with the naked eye. More chance of seeing the truth that way. Isn’t there ?
.

On the subject of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. At the time he was purported to have lived, Jesus was a very common name, like John today. There were many Jesus. But there seems to be some doubt as to whether the village of Nazareth existed. Some say it did but it was uninhabited. Some say it was in Galilee. Some say it was in Judaea. If it did exist and if it was inhabited, there were probably several Jesus of Nazareth. But did any of them lead the life of the person described in the New Testament ? Did it all happen to the same Jesus or were there several Jesus from the same village involved ?

For some reason, best known to himself, C.S. Lewis obviously believed that the village of Nazareth did exist at the time and that at least one of the Jesus who was probably born there lived the miraculous life of the person described in the New Testament.

I think you are right, Foxy, Saul of Tarsus’ explanation is probably the most plausible : C.S. Lewis must have been “looking through a glass darkly”.

Here is some speculation on the village of Nazareth where Jesus is said to hail from :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#Roman_Empire_era

P.S. : I don't see the connection with the Aborigines. Your conversation with Runner is confusing.

.

Dear Banjo Patterson,

I responded to runner's earlier post on the issue
of the Constitutional recognition debate of
Australian Aborigines. We had been discussing this
issue in another discussion. I think that runner
posted on this thread in error. However, I chose
to respond to him here as well. I apologise for the
confusion caused.

Thank You for the link and for taking the time to respond
in such an interesting way. I have found that my
religion has brought me great comfort in times of crisis.
I believe in what Christ teaches. I think that there
are still gaps in our understanding that science can never
fill. On the ultimately important questions - of the
meaning and purpose of life and the nature of morality.

I think that few citizens would utterly deny the possibility
of some higher power in the universe, some supernatural,
transcendental realm that lies beyond the boundaries of
ordinary experience, and in this fundamental sense religion
is probably here to stay.

Foxy,
Welcome back, I am sure you will add some interest to this forum.

You and I will have some differences but I intend to start with a clean slate and look forward to reading your comments. If you are quoting some other person, don't forget to acknowledge that.

By the way, I support Voluntary Euthanasia, with adequate safeguards.

How is your personal health going these days? Take it easy.

Dear Banjo,

Thank You so much for your kind words.
It very lovely of you.

I know that we have had our differences in the past and
I now feel that it was definitely my fault -
For which I apologise unreservedly.

I intend to be more even handed in the future.
After all this is a discussion forum and a variety of
opinions should be welcomed. Words do hurt.
Also, I shall acknowledge all of my sources and not take for
granted the fact that posters will remember ones given previously.

Sorry.

cont'd ...

In all honesty I still don't know what to think
about voluntary euthanasia. I keep changing my mind.
I find it so complex - and with my mum going
downhill one day, and better the next - doesn't make
it easy. Safeguards in place? Yes definitely!

My own health is taking it one day at a time. I'm in
pain - can't sleep most of the night (a few hours is
what I get) hence the forum helps.

Thanks for caring.

Attitudes towards voluntary euthanasia may have a great deal to do with religion. Most religious groups are against it, and some are for it. However, almost all have a position regarding it.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_euthanasia:

"Religious views on euthanasia are both varied and complicated. While one's view on the matter doesn't necessarily connect directly to their religion, it often impacts a person's opinion. While the influence of religion on one's views toward palliative care do make a difference, they often play a smaller role than one may think. An analysis of the connection between the religion of US adults and their view on euthanasia was done in order to see how they combine. The findings concluded that the religious affiliation one associates with does not necessarily connect with their stance on euthanasia. [27] Research shows that while many belong to a specific religion, they may not always see every aspect as relevant to them.

Some metadata analysis has supported the hypothesis that nurses’ attitudes towards euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are influenced by religion and world view. Attributing more importance to religion also seems to make agreement with euthanasia and physician assisted suicide less likely.[28] A 1995 study of public opinion found that the tendency to see a distinction between active euthanasia and suicide was clearly affected by religious affiliation and education.[29] In Australia, more doctors without formal religious affiliation were sympathetic to active voluntary euthanasia, and acknowledged that they had practised it, than were doctors who gave any religious affiliation. Of those identifying with a religion, those who reported a Protestant affiliation were intermediate in their attitudes and practices between the agnostic/atheist and the Catholic groups. Catholics recorded attitudes most opposed, but even so, 18 per cent of Catholic medical respondents who had been so requested, recorded that they had taken active steps to bring about the death of patients.[30]"

Dear David F.,

Thank You for the article from Wikipedia.

It makes sense that many religions are generally
opposed to euthanasia due to their belief that life
belongs to God and therefore it's His to take and
not the individual's. Therefore many religions are
against euthanasia. Some are not. Others - depend on
the circumstances. However this does not mean that all
followers will follow their religions blindly. Within
religions there are people who follow their own
conscience.

Buddhists are critical of the procedure and the
destruction of human life. Hinduism teaches that by
helping to end a painful life a person is performing
a good deed. Even in Christianity there are groups
of people in a number of countries - with different
opinions. I guess we react differently depending
on our own personal circumstances and how they affect
us and our lives as well as those of our loved ones.

I am anti abortion as a general principle, due to the fact I give rights to the unborn. and in many cases abortions are carried out for reasons of convince, and not for a life threatening medical reason. The unborn has no say in the matter at all. However I do not equate abortion and voluntary euthanasia as being somewhat one and the same. With voluntary euthanasia I believe the terminally ill has the right to choose to end their suffering. it is not a simple matter and it requires a lot of examination before being undertaken. The overriding consideration must always be what is best for the person involved, with the final rational decision to end their life, always clearly being in their hands, and no one else's.

Dear Paul,

Thank you for your input.

However the right to die decision cannot always be
made by the person affected, for example if they
degenerate into a vegetative state. Then somebody
else has to make that decision.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

You wrote :

« I have found that my religion has brought me great comfort in times of crisis … I think that there are still gaps in our understanding that science can never fill … religion is probably here to stay »

You’re absolutely spot on there, Foxy. That’s exactly right. That’s how religion began and that’s how it will continue.

The difference, so far as I, personally, am concerned, is that I managed to “see the light”. It very nearly took me all my life, but I finally did “see the light”.

Though I’m a slow learner and even slower to understand, I have happily been endowed with an unusual propensity for synthetic thought. Where others, perhaps, may only see a series of unrelated images, I somehow succeed in putting the jigsaw puzzle together – despite the fact that there may be many missing pieces.

It does not come easily. In the case in hand, I had to make a serious effort to study and evaluate the intricate mass of historical, anthropological and archaeological evidence to get to the bottom all those difficult questions you raised in your post about “the possibility of some higher power in the universe, some supernatural, transcendental realm that lies beyond the boundaries of ordinary experience”.

I attacked the problem with a critical eye but with an open mind. I won’t bother you with all the boring details and explanations. Suffice it to say that I finally arrived at the conclusion that there is nothing to justify belief in the existence of any such hypothetical entities at the present time.

I found no justification other than the one you mentioned - which you expressed so well :

« I have found that my religion has brought me great comfort in times of crisis … I think that there are still gaps in our understanding that science can never fill … »

Which is why, as you say :

« … religion is probably here to stay ».

.

Dear Banjo Patterson,

Just to add a bit more.

I think that the rituals enacted in any religion
enhance the solidarity of the community as well as
its faith. Things like baptism, bar mitzvah,
weddings, Sabbath services, Christmas mass and
of course funerals. Rituals like these serve to
bring people together, to remind them of their
common group membership, to reaffirm their
traditional values, to maintain prohibitions and
taboos, and as I stated earlier to offer comfort in
times of crisis, and, in general to help transmit the
cultural heritage from one generation to the next.
Probably the origins of religion as the early sociologist
Emile Durkheim claimed - were social not supernatural.
In fact, Durkheim went even further Durheim argued,
shared religious beliefs and the rituals that go with them are
so important that every society needs a religion, or
at least some belief system that serves the same
functions.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

I fully agree, but you are only looking at the positive sign of the coin. Like everything human, it has two sides.

But before we go into that, allow me to say a few words on the origin of religion :

I understand that we human beings branched off from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees about five to seven million years ago. Life in those early days must have been quite terrifying, not only before we developed intellectual faculties superior to other biological species, but even long after we were able to employ them. Nature, for no apparent reason, often became terribly aggressive. We found ourselves subjected to violent hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, volcanos, droughts, snow storms, bush fires, as well as the occasional devastating meteorite. We had no warning and no explanation for any of it.

It is not surprising that little by little, due to the development of our intellectual capacity to conceptualise, we gradually replaced our instinctive reaction of terror to these natural phenomena with logical, supernatural explanations. Animist religions, which continue to be largely present today, attributed a god or spirit to each of earth’s physical features as well as to each of the terrifying manifestations of nature. The concept of anthropomorphic gods soon followed. Human characteristics such as reason, motivation, personality and the possibility to communicate were attributed to the animist gods.

Having invented the supernatural, we elaborated a strategy for survival based on this concept. The strategy consisted in contacting whichever god we had attributed to a particular natural phenomenon and begging him to spare us from his wrath and protect us from harm. If prayers, worship and acts of submission failed to produce the desired result, we offered animal and human sacrifice.

This strategy for survival is what we call religion today. The person or animal we offered to the gods in exchange for the salvation of the rest of the community is now reputed to be a scapegoat. The Christian religions integrated the concept into their dogma.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

The concept of an anthropomorphic deity is unique to Christianity among the three principal Abrahamic monotheistic religions. Both Judaism and Islam reject an anthropomorphic deity, believing that God is beyond human comprehension. Neither Yahweh nor Allah has a face nor anything else human for that matter.

As for its rituals and ceremonies, there is evidence that Christianity has, in fact, invented very little. It has largely cannibalised and plagiarised so-called paganism and other ancient religions. Here are a few examples :

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_33.htm
.

On the other side of the coin, from time immemorial, political leaders have used religion as an effective means of subjugating and controlling their subjects. Also, as Karl Marx observed : “religion is the opium” of the people.

Religion also breeds intolerance and bigotry. It has been the cause of many religious wars or so-called “holy wars”, numerous massacres, genocides and indiscriminate terrorist attacks against innocent civilians.

While on the one hand, as you correctly indicate, religion serves to “bring people together, to remind them of their common group membership …”, on the other hand, it does exactly the contrary. It divides citzens, creates ghettos and promotes religious sectarianism.

In addition, regrettably, it is evident that many religious people are hypocrites, professing virtues they do not actually put into practice in their daily lives. They pretend to be what they are not.

As a result, it's problematic as to whether the end result of religion can be said to be positive or negative.

Finally, you note :

« … the early sociologist … Durkheim argued, shared religious beliefs and the rituals that go with them are so important that every society needs a religion, or at least some belief system that serves the same functions »

In fact, it was another Frenchman, Auguste Comte, who invented the term “sociology” as well as the term “altruism”. He saw altruism as the solicitude for fellow human beings that would eventually constitute a new religion, replacing what he considered to be false, theological, pre-scientific, and metaphysical religion.

No sign of that happening so far !

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Although religion is a universal social institution, it
takes a multitude of forms. Believers may worship gods,
ancestors, or totems. Believers may practice solitary
meditation, frenzied rituals, or solemn prayer.
The great variety of religious behaviour and belief
makes it very difficult to say exactly what "religion"
is. Many definitions have been offered in the past.
Most of the ones we're familiar with have been biased
by ethnocentric Judeo-Christian ideas about religion.
Based on the central beliefs that there exists one
supreme being or God that God created the universe and
all life and takes a continuing interest in the creation;
that there is life hereafter, and that our moral behaviour
in this life influences our fate in the next.

In cross-cultural terms, however, this particular
combination of beliefs is unusual. Many religions do not
recognise a supreme being, and a number do not believe in
gods at all.Several religions ignore questions about the
origins of the universe and life, leaving these problems to
be dealt with instead by nonreligious myth.

Most religions assume that the gods take little interest in
human affairs. Some have almost nothing to say about life
after death - and many - perhaps most- do not think our
earthly morality with our fate beyond the grave.
Obviously, religion cannot be defined in terms of Western
religious tradition alone.

What then is religion?

It's a system of communally shared beliefs and rituals that
are oriented toward some sacred, supernatural realm.

As I stated earlier - it brings me comfort.

Hi Foxy,

There is the rub, make a clear rational decision, it is true some degenerate into such a state that they are obviously not fit to make that informed decision. However I do not believe that should in itself exclude those terminally ill people who are capable of making such a decision from choosing to die with dignity, it should be their choice. I would think the majority who are capable of making a clear choice would choose to live, in the hope that a miracle will happen.
We all have personal stories of a loved one who died in not the best of circumstances. often living without dignity and in pain for a long time until death brings relief, and that is a very sad thing. Medical science can give quantity of life, but not the quality of life that is so necessary.

"As I stated earlier - it brings me comfort." Foxy, as an atheists I have no problem with that. Those who want to believe in something or other is fine by me, if people worship 'Marshmallow Man' offering up jelly beans to him, that's okay as well. It is when the adherents use their religion to start interfering with the rest of us, and want to impose their norms onto society in general, because Marshmallow Man commands it, then I have a problem.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

I thoroughly agree with your comments and, of course, as previously noted, understand why so many people such as yourself cherish their religion, whatever form it may take.

As a matter of fact, one of the painters on the Place du Tertre, here in Montmartre in Paris where I live, recently introduced me to what he considers as the only “true” religion. It is called “hypnoregression”. He is a great painter and is absolutely convinced that “hypnoregression” has been proved scientifically.

You might like to take a look at it :

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube%2c+michael++newton&view=detail&mid=1A65B6A17A16D8AD6D731A65B6A17A16D8AD6D73&FORM=VIRE

.

Thanks for your inputs.

I'll have to respond in greater detail later on
as I'm now about to leave to visit mum for the
day.

Again - Thank You.

Dear Paul,

Physicians are expected to do all they can to sustain
life. And the Medical Association is against
voluntary Euthanasia. However, as I understand from
my own experiences doctors and nurses are becoming
far more flexible these days in their treatment of
patients and palliative care. People are not longer
hooked up to machines as far as I know to keep them
alive. They usually allow nature to take its course
and try to make the patient as comfortable as possible.

I agree with you about trying to force religion onto
other people. Religion and belief is such a personal
matter. To believe or not is something we need to
choose for ourselves. I have no desire to convert
anybody. I have enough of a challenge following my
own journey in life. I certainly don't have all the
answers to the big questions in life. I'm still on my
own journey of discovery.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Thank You for the link. Visiting my mother in the dementia
wing of her nursing home has been quite a learning
experience for me. And it's still very much ongoing. The
spirit of the human being can fill me with more joy than
anything in the world. More than, for example, any
possessions. That's some of the things I'm learning on
my journey - my spirit is uplifted by these encounters.
Yes, I have found certain situations confronting, and
upsetting, however, even from these I've learned a great deal.
People can surprise us at times.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

I am pleased to hear that your mother is in good hands and that you are now reassured that she will not suffer and be looked after as well as humanely possible.

All the best.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Thank You for your kind words.

It has been a pleasure reading your posts.

Hi Foxy,

Over my lifetime I have given thought to the question whether religion has been a positive good, or not for mankind. Obviously my personal experience with religion, that being a Catholic upbringing in the 1960's has influenced my judgement to a certain degree, but not entirely. I have read extensively on the subject and that to has influenced my opinion.
Despite recognizing that religion, and religious people, have kicked a few goals from time to time for humanity and continue to do so, I can only come to the conclusion that the negativity of religion has been a far greater impost on mankind than any real benefits.

One thing that through reading of history I have learnt is that the Christian god is not of constant character, but is continually evolving and changing as man evolves and changes. At one time god was seen as a vengeful god, today god has evolved into a benign loving being. God seems to fit the ethos of man rather than his own strict character. This shows me god is created in the image of man and not the other way around.

Dear Paul,

I respect your opinion.

I'm also a Catholic - although I am not a very good
one. I don't go to church every Sunday. And I'm not
interested in converting anybody else. As for what
religion does that's been wrong and bad. I agree
much damage has been done in the name of religion.
However, so has much good by various dedicated people.
Does it balance out? I'm not sure. All I can do is
act according to what I feel is right for me. You
must do the same.

yep much bad sone in the name of religion however in a very short time the secularist were able to out do the evil. Even today millions are murdered in mothers womb each year. And lets not forget Mao, Stalin and evolutionist Hitler. False religion and the religion of darwinism has always led to evil.

Dear Foxy and Paul1405,

It is not just Christianity that bothers me but monotheism itself. All the monotheistic religions have their own God and feel an imperative to push it on others. Although I believe in no god at all, from my reading the polytheistic religions were much more tolerant and to be preferred. Throw another god on the barbie. Mix and match gods.

However, at a point in history the monotheistic god won out over polytheism in the Roman Empire and the western world. "God against the gods" by Jonathan Kirsch tells the story of the struggle.

The polytheistic deities were both male and female so they did not have the patriarchy associated with the monotheistic male deities. They personified various attributes of humans and the rest of nature such as the seasons, wisdom, war, justice, the sea, discord etc. One could worship the god or gods most compatible with one's nature. The polytheistic religions in general did not concern themselves with the morality of their worshippers. One worshipped the gods to seek their favour. One derived one's morals from community standards or philosophy. The monotheistic religions not only demanded adherence to the god but bundled in their version of morality.

One reason the monotheistic god won out was that it supported authority. "Render unto Caesar" and the divine right of kings go well with monotheism. The monotheistic religions are religions of rule.

Dear David F.,

I recall reading that sociology is not and cannot
be concerned with the truth or falsity of any
religion. Like other empirical sciences, such as
economics or chemistry, sociology is simply not
competent to investigate the supernatural or to
play umpire between competing faiths.
Individual societies may be personally committed to a
religious viewpoint - as indeed many of the
leading contemporary sociologists of religion are. But
sociological research is necessarily directed at the
social rather than the theological aspects of religion.

Regardless of whether or not a supernatural power
exists, religion, like any other institution, has
social characteristics that can be studied by the methods
of social science. Sociologists of religion focus on
such issues as the relationship between society and
religion.

The sociologist can show, for example, that all religions
reflect the cultural concerns of the societies in which
they arise; war-prone societies tend to have gods of war;
agricultural societies, gods of fertility. Societies
that accord much greater power and prestige to men tend to
have male gods and religions dominated by male officials,
it is therefore not surprising that priests, rabbis,
and other clergy have been exclusively male in the past,
or that this situation is gradually changing as gender
roles become more flexible.

Another example is that most Western Christians, being
white tend to think of both God and Jesus as white.
The idea of a black God is almost unimaginable. Portraits
of Jesus frequently present him as a blond Caucasian
rather than as a person of Semitic features he no doubt
was. In many African churches on the other hand
statues and portraits of Jesus show him with dark,
Negroid features.

I would like to Thank everyone who's contributed to this
discussion. I look forward to our inter-action on the
next. For me this discussion appears to have run its course.
Until the next time, I wish you all a very enjoyable
Festive Season and a Safe, and Healthy New Year.

All The Best.

Dear Foxy,

Whether one sees god as white and male or black and female one sees god generally in human image. Humans have created god in their own image. With robots taking a greater role in our society maybe some enterprising theologian will see God as robot.

Happy solstice to all.

Thanks Foxy and david f, you make for most interesting reading on this forum, and again your input on religion has been most enlightening.
The summer solstice December 21st, a day of significance to ancient people, and still to some adherents in 2016, my partner "T" included, mixing a bit of astrology into religion, does no harm. She is pragmatic when it come to the gods, having a strong Christian belief in that God, I'll call him Jehovah, for want of a better name, and equally a belief in Ranginui the sky father, and Paratuanuku the earth mother, and the other deities, male and female, that flow from this source of creation. Interesting that the Maori give equal standing to both the male and female deities. not many religions do. We do not undertake any journey of significance, like air travel, without "T" requesting the intersession of Tangaroa, god of the sea (and by extrapolation air travel as well) , to ensure a safe journey, and before landing in Aotearoa, a prayer to Tane Mahuta is good helpful insurance while you are there, its worked so far. On return "T" will ask Ranginui to intercede with the local Aboriginal deities (she does not know their names) to allow us, and all on board, a safe return. All this along with a Christian payer as well, seems to work quite satisfactorily.

Dear Paul,

Thank You for your kind words. Your posts are very
interesting as well. I had a grandmother who believed
in the ancient pagan gods like the God of Thunder and so
on even though she was raised in the Orthodox Russian
faith. And when there were storms, lightening, and
thunder, she would walk around the house sprinkling
holy water to keep us safe. Perhaps that's why today I
also tend to lean towards both the ancient and the
Christian beliefs. I understand where your partner is
coming from. As John Lennon stated -
"I believe in everything until its disproved - so I
believe in fairies, myths and dragons..."

.

Dear Runner,

.

You wrote :

« … much bad done in the name of religion however in a very short time the secularist were able to outdo the evil … Mao, Stalin and evolutionist Hitler »

You have opened-up a can of worms there, Runner. Things are not quite as clear-cut as you seem to imagine.

Though Mao is not known to have had any religious affiliation, his mother was a devout Buddhist and Mao, himself, is said to have been influenced by Taoism. He is reported to have said when he received delegations from Peru in 1964 that "it is wrong to tell people to be against religion." He said that if China did so, "religious people would oppose us... believing in a certain religion doesn't mean people don't oppose imperialism, feudalism and bureaucratic capitalism" (http://en.people.cn/90001/90776/90882/6610660.html).

Mao was a highly complex character. His position on deity was ambiguous. In his writings, including in “The Little Red Book” ("Self-Reliance and Arduous Struggle chapter 21”) and in many of his poems, he refers to various gods and heaven. Apparently, he did not deny their existence, but seems, rather, to have rebelled against them, as evidenced by one of his famous declarations :

« Battling with heaven, the joy is limitless; battling with Earth, the joy is limitless; battling with people, the joy is limitless »

Stalin was Christian. He was Georgian Orthodox. He was named after St. Joseph and grew up in a religious family where it was planned that he would become a priest. He received an 11 year Christian, religious education to become a priest:

1. The Gori Greek Orthodox priesthood school (1888 - 1894) where he was an Altar Boy.

2. Georgian Orthodox Tiflis Spiritual Priest Seminary in Tbilisi (1894 - 1899).

He later turned his back on religion and adopted Marxism. Whether he actually believed in God or not is a matter of conjecture. The only indisputable fact is that neither Stalin nor Lenin (who was baptised on 28 April 1870 at the local church of St. Nicholas into the Russian
.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Orthodox Church) ever declared that he was an atheist or anything other than a Christian.

As regards Hitler, though it has been suggested that he may have had Jewish and African roots, there are numerous passages in his book, “Mein Kampf”, attesting that he considered himself to be Christian.

“The Telegraph”, 11th December,2016, on his Jewish and African roots :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/7961211/Hitler-had-Jewish-and-African-roots-DNA-tests-show.html

“Mein Kampf” attesting to his Christianity :

Volume 1, Chapter 2 :

« Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord »

Closer to home, Runner, Cambodia’s Pol Pot also comes to mind. The Khmer Rouge were composed of Buddhists and Pol Pot himself was a communist and Theravada Buddhist. He studied at a Buddhist monastery, Wat Botum Vaddei in Phnom Penh (1934 – 1935) and then at a Catholic school École Miche in Phnom Penh, for 8 years (1935 – 1943).

By the way, Runner, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, “secularism” means :

« The principle of separation of the state from religious institutions »

It has nothing to do with “atheism” which, according to the OED means :

« Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods »

Most secular heads of state in the world today profess affiliation to one of the world’s major religions. The current prime minister of Australia, Malcolm Turnbull, declared on the ABC’s “Australian Story” in 2009: “I definitely believe in God”. Though it seems he was an agnostic in his youth and married in an Anglican church in Oxfordshire, he later converted to the faith of his wife’s family, Roman Catholicism, in 2002, and has been a practicing Catholic ever since.

Though, apart from Islam, religion is on the wane these days, a majority of secularists declare adhering to some religion. Secularism and religion are not contradictory as you seem to imagine.

In the 2011 Census, 61.1% of the Australian population declared some variety of Christianity.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

I read with great interest your response to runner
and learned quite a lot.

Thank You.

' Things are not quite as clear-cut as you seem to imagine. '

True Banjo Paterson. The reality is that most monsters see themselves as god. They believe they have the right to slice up unborn babies, treat people who are different as inhumane and make up their own morality. They use pseudo science as some sort of authority to carry out their perversions. The reality is that any thinking person with half a brain could not deny their is a Creator. Who that is can be debated. I just happen to believe it is Jesus Christ.

My use of the word secularism probably is not completely accurate although not nearly as corrupt as secularist are when using the word ' christian' .

Jesus actually said you will know my followers by their fruit. To attribute someone like Hitler who was a strong believer in evolution as a Christian is dishonest at best. He certainly believed in the survival of the fittest. How he would depise seeing that ' pathetic' bunch of Jews being the only thriving democracy on the Middle East today.

Dear runner,

They wouldn't be thriving without the massive American
support, and what about the Palestinians? Where do they
fit into your scenario? Oh that's right, they have to put
up and shut up in this "democracy."

' They wouldn't be thriving without the massive American
support, and what about the Palestinians?'

come on Foxy I thought someone as well read as you would know that Palestine is a made up state who has been given much land. They will not be content until they destroy Israel (someting that will never happen). Your poor interpretation of history and the Scriptures is certainly helping your bias.

Dear runner,

Talking about bias perhaps you need to actually do
a bit more historical research yourself. There's an
excellent book by Antony Loewenstein, "My Israel
Question,"which gives the history of the area.

Israel has been calling the shots since 1967, always
without Palestinian consultation, and clearly believes
that the USA will support it no matter what. Sadly,
once again the international community has placed a
higher value on Israel's vision of its historic
destiny than on the humanity of the Palestinians.
Loewenstein tells us that:

"The Kadima vision is of a concrete wall, with Hews on
one side and as many Arabs as possible on the other.
Sooner or later, Israel and the Palestinians will...
have to listen to each other's grievances and negotiate
with honesty. Only then - and on the condition that both
Israel and the Palestinian state achieve safety and
security - will this conflict be resolved. Neither
side has a monopoly on suffering, but only one party
has the power to end the occupation and to recognise that
Israel and Palestine are destined to share the same
homeland."

Dear Foxy,

In the fourteenth century Lithuanian Grand Duke, Prince Gedimas, like his ancestors put his faith in the god of thunder, Perkunas, who ruled over the many other gods in the Lithuanian pantheon. When emissaries of the pope attempted to convert the prince to Christianity in 1324, the prince told them that he would like to be treated by them as he treated those within his domains: He did not interfere with the Christians who worshipped their God according to their laws, and he hoped that he and his subjects would be left to worship in their way.

Unfortunately the Livonian and Teutonic Knights kept crusading against Lithuania to get the ruling house and the people to adopt Christianity. The long dominion of the pagan gods over Lithuania came to an end in 1386, with the politically impelled marriage of the Lithuanian ruler Jogaila (1351-1434) – Jagiello in Polish – and the Polish princess Jadwiga. She was eleven years, her pagan husband three times her age. Their union, and the resulting political union of Poland and Lithuania, created a state that was much more powerful than either state alone.

I am glad that Christianity did not completely destroy your grandmother’s religion, and she believed in the God of Thunder.

Dear David F.,

I am also glad that my grandmother still believed in
the God of Thunder. Many Lithuanians still do:

"I come from a tribe of nature worshippers,
pantheists, believers in fairies, forest sprites, and
wood nymphs, who heard devils in their windmills,
met them in the woods, cloven-hooved and dapper
gentlemen of the night.
Who named the god of thunder,
who praised and glorified bread, dark rye waving
waist-high out of the earth,
and held it sacred, wasting not a crumb,
who spent afternoons mushrooming in forests of pine,
fir, and birch,
Who transferred Jesus
from his wooden cross, transformed him
into a wood-carved, worrying peasant,
raised him on a wooden pole above the crossroads
where he sat with infinite patience
in rain and snow, wooden legs apart,
wooden elbows on wooden knees,
wooden chin in wooden hand,
worrying and sorrowing for the world...
these people who named their sons and daughters
after amber, rue, fir tree, dawn, storm,
and the only people I know who have a diminutive
form for God Himself - "Dievulis" , "God-my-little-buddy".

Any wonder I catch myself speaking
to trees, flowers, bushes - these eucalyptus so far
from Eastern Europe - or that I bend down to the earth,
gather pebbles, acorns, leaves, boles, bring
them home, enshrine them on mantelpieces or above
porcelain fixtures in corners, any wonder
I grow nervous in rooms
and must step outside and touch a tree,
or sink my toes in the dirt, or watch the birds fly by."

(written by Al Zolynas - American Lithuanian poet).

Dear Foxy,

Thanks for telling me about Al Zolynas. I love the poem you cited. I relate to his poem, “An old man’s desire”. I’ll look up more of him.

I get poems every day in my in box.

Poem-a-Day from poem-a-day@poets.org

Do you go mushrooming, too?

Dear David F.,

That particular poem by Al Zolynas is one
of my favourites. It deeply resonated with me.
It touched a chord. I'm pleased that his work has also
aroused your interest.

Do I go mushrooming? Unfortunately no. I don't know
enough about which mushrooms are safe and which are not.
However, friends of my mother used to go - and they'd bring
back some great samples. Recently we were given a couple
of packets of dried forest mushrooms from Lithuania that
I shall be using in preparing the recipes for our Christmas
Eve banquet. They're "Dziovinti Baravykai," or Dried
Boletus Mushrooms. Which I'm sure will add to the flavour of
the dish I will be preparing.

.

Dear Runner,

.

With reference to Mao, Stalin, Hitler (and Pol Pot), you wrote:

« They believe they have the right to slice up unborn babies, treat people who are different as inhumane and make up their own morality »

After the war, Hitler's former lawyer, Hans Frank, claimed that Hitler told him in 1930 that one of his relatives was trying to blackmail him by threatening to reveal his alleged Jewish ancestry. Hitler asked Frank to find out the facts. Frank said he determined that at the time Maria Schicklgruber (his paternal grand-mother) gave birth to Alois (his father) she was working as a household cook in the town of Graz, her employers were a Jewish family named Frankenberger, and that her child might have been conceived out of wedlock with the family's 19-year-old son, Leopold Frankenberger.

Hans Frank was found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Nuremberg Trials and was executed. No evidence has ever been found to confirm his version of Hitler’s paternal grand-father but the rumour persists. Exactly who was Hitler’s paternal grand-father remains a mystery.

If, at some future time, evidence should come to light corroborating Hans Franck’s version, I know it would be against your principles , Runner, and I certainly do not want to shock you, but I, personally, should sincerely regret that Maria Schcklegruber did not have an abortion.

You also wrote :

« To attribute someone like Hitler who was a strong believer in evolution as a Christian is dishonest at best »

Hitler’s conception of race was not Darwinian nor was Darwinism the source of his anti-Semitism. The motivation and origin of his views were political, not scientific.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler is perfectly explicit about the sources of his anti-Jewish attitudes. He identifies two political figures who turned him from an individual hardly aware of Jews into a passionate anti-Semite: Karl Lueger (1844-1910), the mayor of Vienna (1897-1910) and newspaper baron; and Georg Schönerer (1842-1921), member of the Austrian parliament and ...

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

leader of the Pan German Party, which sought to unite the German speaking lands in a political confederation.

By Hitler’s own admission, these two political figures, not Darwin, were pivotal in forming his anti-Semitic attitudes. He was not, as you suggest, a “strong believer in evolution”.

To quote Robert J. Richards, Professor of the History of Science and Medicine at the University of Chicago :

« Writing in the Zeitschrift after it became a Party organ in 1937, Günther Hecht, an official of the Party’s Department of Race Politics and member of the Zoological Institute in Berlin, explicitly rejected the idea that the materialistic theories of Darwin had anything to do with the “völkisch-biological position of National Socialism.” It is quite clear that Darwinian evolutionary theory held no special place within the community of biologists supportive of National Socialism. Rather, biologists and philosophers most closely identified with the goals of the Nazi party and officials in that party utterly rejected Darwinian theory » :

http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Was%20Hitler%20a%20Darwinian.pdf

Hitler was raised in a Roman Catholic family. He was born in 1889 and was baptised Catholic in the same year. He was confirmed on 22 May 1904. He even wrote in “Mein Kampf” that as a small boy he had once “ardently wished to become a priest”.

In a speech delivered at Koblenz, August 26, 1934 Hitler states:

« National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a real Christianity. The Church’s interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against the Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for the consciousness of a community in our national life, for the conquest of hatred and disunion between the classes, for the conquest of civil war and unrest, of strife and discord. These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles »

However, it is reported that he became hostile to Catholicism towards the end of his life

.

Hi Foxy,

Here is "proof" that the gods are at work. "T" attributes the recent chain of earthquakes in New Zealand to the actions of the government and their environmental vandalism, a total lack of respect for the forests etc, lack of respect is seen as a big no no. According to "T" Ranginui, put Ruamoko the god of earthquakes to work, warning of an impending major calamity, with a serious of relatively minor shocks, including the Pike Rive coal mine disaster. and the destruction of the Christchurch Cathedral in 2011, a building "T" first entered for the one and only time in 2010, I have to admit, then she didn't like being inside the place, and spent most of her time outside taking photos, incidentally the cathedral had survived numerous previous earthquakes relatively unscathed, but not in 2011.
The recent shock resignation of John Key, the NZ Prime Minister, and the leading political exponent of environmental vandalism is also seen as evidence that the gods are active. I suppose we can put whatever spin we like on events without real evidence. Another unsettling phenomenon was the "snow" a few years back across the Nagapuhi tribal land of Northland (a warm region not known for snow), I saw the pics, and it looked like a post card from Norway. According to the experts it was not snow, but a kind of frost which in a very humid atmosphere had condensed into what looked like snow, was thick in places about 100mm, sure looked like snow. This even caused much excitement and consternation, along with plenty of chatter on 'Facebook',mobile phones etc, for a time, until the snow melted. The upshot is, a short while later a shale oil company tried to move into Maori lands of "T"'s second sub tribe, through marriage, causing much division within the local community, with allegations of bribery etc. It was thought this nonsense had been put to rest through overwhelming community action, but unfortunately seems not, the mining company is back, to try a second time, with government support. is all this related, maybe.

Dear Paul,

Thank You for another interesting post.