Print

Print


I think it depends how you read my sentence.  I could read your
definition as precisely "standing for Christianity" even as a pose.
Nancy

On 7 Oct 2003, at 14:41, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I am surprised no one has challenged Nancy's statement
appearing below, as it irreconilable with Nazi ideology and with
Hitler's recorded intentions for Christianity in his "new world order."
(Sorry I can't quote chapter and verse, which I realize would be
useful; but then, if I could cite Hitler chapter and verse, I should be
sorrier still.) > > As a leader seeking to control an overwhelmingly
Christian population, largely through anti-communist propaganda
(which lent itself to religious appeals), Hitler authorized statements
designed to create the impression that he "stood for Christianity"
against the "godless bolsheviks".  That is quite different than
saying that he actually "imagined himself standing for Christianity."
 This latter proposition appears without basis; rather, there is
considerable evidence that he intended to destroy and supplant
Christianity with his own religious (or quasi-religious) ideas. > >
Tom K > > In a message dated 10/5/2003 2:31:08 PM Eastern
Daylight Time, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> writes: >
> >Dear Carrol, > > > >Hitler seemed to have imagined himself
standing for Christianity (to > >take an extreme example); does
one "honor" that, or is there > >anything at all in what Jesus said
and did that puts some limits on > >the term? > >Cheers, >
>Nancy > > > > > >Date sent:              Sun, 5 Oct 2003 13:24:41 -
0500 > >Send reply to:          "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum."
<[log in to unmask]> > >From:                   Carrol Cox
<[log in to unmask]> > >Subject:                Re: OT or OT?
Possible Perspectives > >To:
[log in to unmask] > > > >Nancy Gish wrote: > >> > >>
Dear Carrol, > >> > >> Excuse me, I think I follow all of this but
one point:  what is > >> "Christian" about either Jerry Falwell or
Pat Robertson?  (except, of > >> course, their own self labeling) >
> > >Christianity, like other cultural and/or ideological practices, >
>incorporates radically different and/or antagonistic histories, and
one > >needs to honor such in any extended consideration. (The
next > >sentence > >would be more precise had I a better memory
for proper names.) > >But were > >one to draw a line from (say)
Bishop Romero to Pat Robinson, it > >would be > >difficult, I think,
to find a nodal point at which X turned into Not-X > >(and of course
there would be raging battles over which direction the line > >was
moving in). Hence it seems to me best to define Christianity >
>ostensively: It consists of the total mishmash of ideas and
attitudes ever > >held by anyone who called her/himself Christian.
One can then make > >distinctions (or allow for battles) within that
territory. > > > >> Oh yes, and it is two words:  Waste Land.  In
this case, I do not > >> think it is pedantry but genuinely different
implacations. > > > >I agree. In fact, it's rather intriguing to play
around with the > >different stresses in speaking (silently) the two
phrases, "the waste > >land" and "the wasteland." > > > >Carrol >
>