George Santayana was right.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

"No but I have seen a big change in this country in my lifetime. I see more people not following any religion at all. Is it good for the country I don't know. Has the country evolved into what I can only call a lack of moralities yes. Is it more to do with the lack of religion or parenting?"

Now I'm not saying everything is bad, and this country has done pretty damn good in morality. But I do see some distress in our society and something is lacking with our youth.

Religion and or Parenting has always been the teacher of morals throughout time. Are we lacking?
I like to look to history because as humans we tend to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Perhaps so, but what do you want government to do about it?

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

So, what do you expect THE GOVERNMENT to do about lousy parenting and the fact that the populace is becoming disillusioned with religion?

Dave

Originally Posted by finnbow

Perhaps so, but what do you want government to do about it?

I don't expect the "Government" to do anything. IMO they have overstepped their bounds in this regard.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Yet the people who want to impose Christian doctrine through the law rally frequently against the evils of Sharia law.

Well, you see, we're God's chosen people and they are not (says every group on Earth...)

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by icenine

Actually he was elected....he won a plurality of votes in 1932 was a member of a coalition of various politicians that were trying to set up a Government under Hindenburg. He had to get two other rivals out of the way Von Papen and a guy named Schliecher and became Chancellor in early 1933.

I do not know where you get the idea he was not elected to an office. You have to remember that he made the decision to use legitimate means to achieve elective office after the failed coup of 1923.
He used the system to destroy it of course.

Hitler was very popular and I do not buy the myth that he sort of hoodwinked everyone. If you watch some of the footages of the rallies (the early Nuremberg ones) you will see women swooning when they see him.

People wanted him to fix Germany's economic system and some historians can point out similarities between his efforts to end the Depression in Germany and the New Deal programs FDR was trying in the States at the same time.

I am sure the Germans who supported him during his time as Dictator did not see him as criminal.
You do not get within 16 miles of Moscow with a willing German army perceiving their Commander In Chief as a "criminal".

The use of the term criminal in relation to the Third Reich is a euphemism to me.

Last first--I hardly mean 'criminal' to be an ephumism. I think it's very bad. Maybe if I used the word 'sociopathic' you'd feel better about it? My main point in using it is to avoid 'over-exceptionalizing' the Nazis. There is this attitude that Hitler and his gang were in some way unique, were special in their evil. But if you look at their activities from the beginning through the 20's they are replete with all sorts of typical criminality--blackmail, extortion, assault, poisoning, murder. Hitler strategized to obtain political power, not just 'gangster power' and riches, which is different from the usual criminal gang. But their attitudes were criminal. They did nasty criminal stuff not just because it worked for them. They did it because that's how they thought--that's how they were.

There is danger in over-exceptionalizing the Nazi's--it leads to 'it can't happen again' and 'it can't happen here.' I'm here to tell everyone to watch out--it can.

(Continued on next rock)

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by icenine

Actually he was elected....he won a plurality of votes in 1932 was a member of a coalition of various politicians that were trying to set up a Government under Hindenburg. He had to get two other rivals out of the way Von Papen and a guy named Schliecher and became Chancellor in early 1933.

I do not know where you get the idea he was not elected to an office. You have to remember that he made the decision to use legitimate means to achieve elective office after the failed coup of 1923.
He used the system to destroy it of course.

OK--start with the fact that Chancellor under the Wiemar constitution was not an elective office. Hitler was appointed Chancellor.

The Nazis were never the electoral choice of the majority of German voters, and actually lost support in the in the 1932 election, going from 230 seats to 196. Hinderberg and von Papen were in effect bullied into offering Hitler the Chancellorship, mainly becasue the Nazi trolling and intimidation in and out of the Reichstag had rendered it totally dysfunctional, and Hinderberg and von Papen grasped at this solution.

By the time Hitler was made dictator by the Enabling Act, he had much of his Reichstag opposition dead or in Dachau already, and the rest were reminded of what could happen to them by hundreds of brownshirts lining the hall. The only surprising thing is that anyone dared vote against it.

I call it a step-by-step coup, with some attention paid to a sham of democratic forms, but nothing like being elected.

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

....

There is danger in over-exceptionalizing the Nazi's--it leads to 'it can't happen again' and 'it can't happen here.' I'm here to tell everyone to watch out--it can.

(Continued on next rock)

Agreed. Although they were 'exceptionally' () good at being bad, taking things that had/have been done since time began and scaling it to unseen heights.

Pete

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by icenine

Hitler was very popular and I do not buy the myth that he sort of hoodwinked everyone. If you watch some of the footages of the rallies (the early Nuremberg ones) you will see women swooning when they see him.

People wanted him to fix Germany's economic system and some historians can point out similarities between his efforts to end the Depression in Germany and the New Deal programs FDR was trying in the States at the same time.

I am sure the Germans who supported him during his time as Dictator did not see him as criminal.
You do not get within 16 miles of Moscow with a willing German army perceiving their Commander In Chief as a "criminal".

I said that lots of people bought into the 'power trip.' Of course the believers did not see him as criminal--not using that word, with the combination of descriptive and moral meaning it has for us. But unless you think Hitler genuinely was what he presented himself to be--the savior of the Volk, leading them to their rightful destiny of conquest and domination--you have to figure folks were hoodwinked into swallowing such myth.

Hitler's skill of skills was persuasion--both with the masses, and one-on-one. He stroked, he insinuated, he intimidated, he bribed, he threatened, he said whatever would work for the task at hand. There were very few who could resist. But again, unless you see him as real and genuine (and pick a layer of his great onion of ideas to be the 'true' one), you have to conclude he was one of the great con men of all time.

And con men are criminals.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Agreed. Although they were 'exceptionally' () good at being bad, taking things that had/have been done since time began and scaling it to unseen heights.

Pete

As I said in poet 52, "the Nazis were the most successful criminal organization of all time." They deserve careful study. Understanding how that happened will have to be very instructive regarding many aspects of power, politics, and human psychology and sociology.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

OK--start with the fact that Chancellor under the Wiemar constitution was not an elective office. Hitler was appointed Chancellor.

The Nazis were never the electoral choice of the majority of German voters, and actually lost support in the in the 1932 election, going from 230 seats to 196. Hinderberg and von Papen were in effect bullied into offering Hitler the Chancellorship, mainly becasue the Nazi trolling and intimidation in and out of the Reichstag had rendered it totally dysfunctional, and Hinderberg and von Papen grasped at this solution.

By the time Hitler was made dictator by the Enabling Act, he had much of his Reichstag opposition dead or in Dachau already, and the rest were reminded of what could happen to them by hundreds of brownshirts lining the hall. The only surprising thing is that anyone dared vote against it.

I call it a step-by-step coup, with some attention paid to a sham of democratic forms, but nothing like being elected.

was his actual selection by Hindenburg legal under the current law at the time?

I do not know.

I posit these two historical facts

The Egyptians got rid of Morsi when he started his own enabling acts.
The Germans never got rid of Hitler.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

I don't expect the "Government" to do anything. IMO they have overstepped their bounds in this regard.

Okay, so what then, does anybody do about it?

As a side note; I love how the GOP has long lamented the decline of "family values" and pandered to evangelicals and other religious groups promising them a return to "Christian principles", some rightwing zealots even proclaiming America a "Christian Nation".

Seeing as how the Republican Party is a component of local, state and federal government entities across the nation I fail to see how they can deliver on any hint or promise of Theocracy without committing some very egregious 1st Amendment violations or create a huge, invasive government way beyond the worst nightmare of our most paranoid teabagger.

As I am sure we will see from the recent goings on in Arizona, it just can't fly.

Dave