Palestinians, as well as some left-wing Jews, are being suspended from studies, fired from jobs, or arrested at night — all because of social media posts.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean… Hitler was fine with discriminating against Christian Germans who weren’t members of the party. That was why he had secret police.

    • _cnt0@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      No Christian in Nazi Germany was discriminated for being Christian. Hitler referred to himself as Christian, had a catholic upbringing and was never excommunicated, not even retroactively to this day. The two big Christian denominations received very favorable laws (see Reichskonkordat) which they are very fond of to this day. The antisemitism in Nazi Germany was an aggravation of centuries old Christian antisemitism which could be found all over Europe. All claims that any Christian was discriminated by the Nazis for being Christian is patently absurd. It was a deeply Christian movement with some occult/pagan elements (see Himmler & Co).

      • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        They literally targeted Roman Catholics because the feared they wouldn’t be loyal to the state.

        • _cnt0@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s simply not true. They didn’t target Catholics, they targeted parts of the Catholic church (the institution) for political opposition. That’s a very different thing.

          • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            No it isn’t. When you go after a Church to limit its voice in society you are attacking the faithful. Targeting the church IS going after Catholics.

            • _cnt0@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Maybe from a revisionist perspective. ~20% of NSDAP members were Catholic. Keep in mind that the NSDAP was founded in deeply Catholic Bavaria. ~400 Catholic priests from Germany ended up in concentration camps, out of 20.000. It was no attack on the Catholic church, but on individuals within the church who publicly opposed the Nazis. That’s political persecution, not religious persecution. Any claim to the contrary is historical revisionism.

              95% of the German population was either Catholic or Protestant. And so was the NSDAP and their voter base. It tilted more to Protestants, but Catholics were not excluded. The Reichskonkordat benefitted the Protestant and Catholic churches equally.

              This is more of a reply to everybody and not just your comment specifically. Where do you people think the antisemitism in 1930s Germany came from? Hitler and the NSDAP came around and turned “everybody” into anti-Semites? No. The Christian antisemitism was already there and the NSDAP tapped into it. Especially, but not limited to, from the Protestant side: Martin Luther was a raging anti-Semite. Pogroms had been taking place all over Europe for hundreds of years before the NSDAP arrived. The NSDAP “only” brought it to the next level. The entire anti-Semite NSDAP movement was deeply rooted in Christianity. If any Christian individual was persecuted by the Nazi regime it was for political opposition, not for their Christianity. If a fringe Christian sect was persecuted by the Nazis, they were persecuted by other flavors of Christianity! That the Nazis (who were by and large Christians) persecuted Christians for being Christians is complete revisionist nonsense!

              Remember the past or you are condemned to repeat it!

              • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Ok but that doesn’t have anything to do with the fact they targeted Catholics. The GOP has gay members yet it is 100% accurate to say the GOP does not believe gay people should have equal rights with straight people, so even though the GOP is targeting gay people they still have gay members.

                Catholics being part of the Nazi party doesn’t have the significance you think it does.

                As n aside why are you calling them anything other than the Nazi party? I get NSDAP was the name they preferred but why grant Nazis respect?

                • _cnt0@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Ok but that doesn’t have anything to do with the fact they targeted Catholics.

                  Nonsense.

                  The GOP has gay members yet it is 100% accurate to say the GOP does not believe gay people should have equal rights with straight people, so even though the GOP is targeting gay people they still have gay members.

                  Straw man.

                  Catholics being part of the Nazi party doesn’t have the significance you think it does.

                  Lie: 20% Catholics in the party is significantly more than the one or two alibi open homosexuals in the GOP.

                  As n aside why are you calling them anything other than the Nazi party? I get NSDAP was the name they preferred but why grant Nazis respect?

                  Diversion.

                  All the numbers and historical circumstances I layed out are easily verifiable facts. Your compulsive urge to cling to a false narrative in the presence of irrefutible evidence and attempt to dance around that by picking out fragments of what I said and attempting to ridicule everything by extension is preposterous. And everybody with the reading comprehension of a high schooler should see right through it. I’m out of your bad faith (or ignorant) excuse for a conversation.

                  • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    You should not list off rhetorical fallacies as a response unless you are certain you understand them. You have been incorrect about both.

                    The example of the GOP is not a straw man as it is an identical situation to the Nazis in that the targeted group also has members within the group. You don’t know what a straw man argument is and you proved it here.

                    You should probably stop here since you haven’t provided any evidence that supports your claims while simultaneously showing a startlingly poor understanding of reasoning.

        • _cnt0@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Then what’s the point of saying “Christian German” instead of just “people”?

            • _cnt0@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              Still doesn’t make sense to me. The way I’m reading what you’ve written is that you’re insinuating that peoples’ Christianity played a role in them being discriminated by Hitler and his cronies, which was never the case. Peoples’ beliefs played no role in political persecution and hence I don’t see the point in emphasizing Christianity here. He also had no trouble discriminating against Atheist, agnostic, Pagan, … people if they were politically opposed.

      • novibe@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Jehovah’s witnesses were actually some of the first victims of the Holocaust. Alongside the mentally and physically handicapped.

        • _cnt0@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          And are to this day not even considered a religious group, but a sect monitored by the intelligence service (Verfassungsschutz) in Germany. In Germany in the 1930s, ~95% of the population were either Catholic or Protestant; other Christian denominations only accounted for .5% of the population. Don’t nitpick in the .5% when talking about Christianity in Nazi Germany. Red herring much …

        • _cnt0@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh that’s great news, maybe you should go ahead and tell the families of the 2500 priests who were incarcerated in Dachau concentration camp …

          … for opposimg the Nazis. They were incarcerated for political opposition, not for being Christians. The entire persecution of the Jews only worked because of the cooperation of the Christian churches with the Nazi state. There was no central birth register at the time. It was the church books that determined how (non-) jewish you were. Especially the Catholic church facilitated the fleeing of Nazis to Argentia and other places at the end of the war. Lots of the Christian churches actively supported the Nazis, many did not oppose them, and the few that did were persecuted for that; not for being Christian. This is all very well documented.

          They will be so happy to know that they weren’t discriminated against for their religion. I’m sure those long term plans from the Nazi party to de-christianize Germany were just Nuremberg propaganda.

          This is plain and utter nonsense. That article is pure garbage, misrepresenting what actually happened. Never did the Nazis (as a whole/party line) want to replace Christianity. They wanted to replace the existing denominations with one state run church, with a Nazi-flavored Christianity, but still Christianity. They created new versions of the Bible where they adjusted some parts to better reflect their ideoligy. When they failed to establish that, they intensified their cooperation with the existing churches. Again, this is all very well documented. These top secret documents don’t really provide any new information, unless, like that “news article” you lie about their content and misrepresent “replacing existing churches with a state church” as “replacing Christianity”. What a heap of garbage. You should adjust your bullshit filter and read some proper history books about Nazi Germany and the involvement of the Christian churches. There was just a tiny fraction of Nazis with Himmler on the top who would have liked Christianity gone, who were neither representative of the party line nor in a position to realize that. Representing anything they said as “the Nazis wanted to …” is disingenuous at best.

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        never excommunicated, not even retroactively

        You can’t be excommunicated retroactively.

        Excommunication is meant to socially pressure someone into repentance, which is obviously pointless after death.

          • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            By the time he rose to power, Hitler was no longer a practicing Catholic. In fact he publicly aligned himself with “Deutsche Christen”, a Nazi version of Protestantism. So again, excommunication would have been pointless.

            • _cnt0@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              And what did the Catholic church at least used to do with people denouncing their faith?

              • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Nothing. There are millions of lapsed Catholics and converts out of Catholicism. The church does not take action against them.

                Excommunication is meant for practicing Catholics. It means “You can’t take part in Catholic sacraments until you stop disagreeing with the church.”

                It is obviously pointless if someone already left the church. In fact, the people excommunicated most often - by far - are Catholic clergy who dissent about some matter of doctrine.