| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
25 Mar 2005 09:19:13 PM |
| Object: |
Facts vs. media fictions about Terri's actual condition |
The affidavit extracts below demonstrate the falsity of the old media's
erroneous allegation that 'no one is home' in Terri Schindler Schiavo.
Also, Terri can anticipate and feel pain.
A U.S. judiciary run amok and a shameless American Criminal Liberties
Union are intent on murdering via starvation an innocent/ guiltless and
defenseless woman.
Decency demands that this unjustified, court-imposed death sentence on
Terri Schindler Schiavo be stopped.
What, if anything, will you do to help Terri and stop a judiciary and
ACLU run amok?
action items to help Terri
http://www.terrisfight.org/actionitems.html
From
http://www.hospicepatients.org/terri-schindler-schiavo-docs-links-page.html
from the PDF "Affidavit of William Cheshire, Jr., MD 03-23-05":
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF DUVALL
Before me this day personally appeared William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D.,
who, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I, William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D., have personal knowledge of the
facts stated in this declaration and, if called as a witness, I could
and would testify competently thereto under oath. I declare as follows:
I am a neurologist practicing in the State of Florida and am certified
by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. In regard to my
educational background, I received an A.B. in biochemical sciences from
Princeton University, an M.A. in bioethics from Trinity International
University, and an M.D. from West Virginia University. I completed an
internship in internal medicine at West Virginia University, a residency
in neurology and a pain fellowship at the University of North Carolina.
I am also an appointed volunteer with the Florida Statewide Adult
Protective Services team, in which capacity I was called on March 1,
2005, to provide an independent and objective medical review of
allegations of possible abuse, neglect, or exploitation of Ms. Theresa
Marie Schiavo.
Although no one from the Department of Children and Families has
inquired about my personal views about treatment decisions in cases of
persistent vegetative state (PVS), I would like to disclose that I came
into this case with the belief that it can be ethically permissible to
discontinue artificially provided nutrition and hydration for patients
in a persistent vegetative state. Having now reviewed the relevant
facts, having met and observed Ms. Schiavo in person, and having
reflected deeply on the moral and ethical issues, I would like to
explain why I change my mind in regard to this particular case.
.....
Based on my review of extensive medical records documenting Terri's care
over the years, on my personal observation of Terri, and on my
observations of Terri's responses in the many hours of videotapes taken
in 2002, she demonstrates a number of behaviors I believe cast a
reasonable doubt on the prior diagnosis of PVS. These include:
1. Her behavior is frequently context-specific. For example, her
facial expression brightens and she smiles in response to the voice of
familiar persons such as her parents or her nurse. Her agitation
subsides and her facial demeanor softens when quiet music is played.
When jubilant piano music is played, her face brightens, she lifts her
eyebrows, smiles, and even laughs. Her lateral gaze toward the tape
player is sustained for many minutes. Several times I witnessed Terri
briefly, albeit inconsistently, laugh in response to a humorous comment
someone in the room had made. I did not see her laugh in the absence of
someone else's laughter.
2. Although she does not seem to track or follow visual objects
consistently or for long periods of time, she does fixate her gaze on
colorful objects or human faces for some 15 seconds at a time and
occasionally follows with her eyes at least briefly as these objects
move from side to side. When I first walked into her room, she
immediately turned her head toward me and looked directly at my face.
There was a lot of curiosity or expectation in her expression, and she
maintained eye contact for about half a minute. Later, when she again
looked at me, she brought her lips together as if to pronounce the
letter "O," and although for a moment it appeared that she might be
making an intentional effort to speak, her face then fell blank, and no
words came out.
3. Although I did not hear Terri utter distinct words, she demonstrates
emotional expressivity by her use of a single syllable of vocalizations
such as "ah," making cooing sounds, or by expressing guttural sounds of
annoyance or moaning appropriate to the context of the situation. The
context-specific range and the variability of her vocalizations suggests
at least a reasonable probability of the processing of emotional thought
within her brain. There have been reports of Terri rarely using actual
words specific to her situational context. The July 25, 2003 affidavit
of the speech pathologist Sarah Green Mole, MS, on page 6, reads, "The
records of Mediplex reflect the fact that she has said 'stop' in
apparent response to a medical procedure being done to her." The Adult
Protective Services team has been unable to retrieve those original
medical records in this instance.
4. Although Terri has not consistently followed commands, there
appeared to be some notable exceptions. In the taped examination by Dr.
Hammesfahr from 2002, when asked to close her eyes she began to blink
repeatedly. Although it was unclear whether she squeezed her grip when
asked, she did appear to raise her right leg four times in succession
each time she was asked to do so. Rehabilitation notes from 1991
indicated that she tracked inconsistently, and although she did not
develop a yes/no communication system, did follow some commands
inconsistently and demonstrated good eye contact to family members.
5. There is a remarkable moment in the videotape of the September 3,
2002 examination by Dr. Hammesfahr that seemed to go unnoticed at the
time. At 2:44 p.m., Dr. Hammesfahr had just turned Terri onto her right
side to examine her back with a painful sharp stimulus (a sharp piece of
wood), to which Terri had responded with signs of discomfort. Well
after he ceased applying the stimulus and had returned Terri to a
comfortable position, he says to her parents, "So, we're going to have
to roll her over...." Immediately Terri cries. She vocalizes a crying
sound, "Ugh, ha, ha, ha," presses her eyebrows together, and sadly
grimaces. It is important to note that, at that moment, no one is
touching Terri or causing actual pain. Rather, she appears to
comprehend the meaning of Dr. Hammesfahr's comment and she signals her
_anticipation_ of pain. This response suggests some degree of language
processing and interpretation at the level of the cerebral cortex. It
also suggests that she may be aware of pain beyond what could be
explained by simple reflex withdrawal.
6. According to the definition of PVS published by the American Academy
of Neurology, "persistent vegetative state patients do not have the
capacity to experience pain or suffering. Pain and suffering are
attributes of consciousness requiring cerebral cortical functioning, and
patients who are permanently and completely unconscious cannot
experience these symptoms."^6 And yet, in my review of Terri's medical
records, pain issues keep surfacing. The nurses at Woodside Hospice
told us that she often has pain with menstrual cramps. Menstrual flow
is associated with agitation, repeated or sustained moaning, facial
grimacing, limb posturing, and facial flushing, all of which subside
once she is given ibuprofen. Some of the records document moaning,
crying, and other painful behavior in the setting of urinary tract
infections.
.....
7. To enter the room of Terri Schiavo is nothing like entering the room
of a patient who is comatose or brain-dead or in some neurological sense
no longer there. Although Terri did not demonstrate during our 90
minute visit compelling evidence of verbalization, conscious awareness,
or volitional behavior, yet the visitor has the distinct sense of the
presence of a living human being who seems at some level to be aware of
some things around her.
As I looked at Terri, and she gazed directly back at me, I asked myself
whether, if I were her attending physician, I could in good conscience
withdraw nutrition and hydration. No, I could not. I could not
withdraw life support if I were asked. I could not withhold
life-sustaining nutrition and hydration from this beautiful lady whose
face brightens in the presence of others.
The neurologic signs are in many ways ambiguous. There is no guarantee
that more sophisticated testing would definitively resolve that
ambiguity to everyone's satisfaction. There would be value, I think, in
obtaining a functional MRI scan if that is possible.
This situation differs fundamentally from end-of-life scenarios where it
is appropriate to withdraw life-sustaining medical interventions that no
longer benefit or are burdensome to patients in the terminal stages of
illness. Terri's feeding tube is not a burden to her. It is not
painful, is not infected, is not eroding her stomach lining or causing
any medical complications. But for the decision to withdraw her feeding
tube, Terri cannot be considered medically terminal. But for the
withdrawal of food and water, she would not die [well, she would not die
now-- everybody dies eventually, sometimes sooner rather than later. We
never know when we will go to meet our Maker. -df].
In summary, Terri [Schindler] Schiavo demonstrates behaviors in a
variety of cognitive domains that call into question the previous
neurologic diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. Specifically, she
has demonstrated behaviors that are context-specific, sustained, and
indicative of a cerebral cortical processing that, upon careful
neurologic consideration, would not be expected in a persistent
vegetative state.
Based on this evidence, I believe that, within a reasonable degree of
medical certainty, there is a greater likelihood that Terri is in a
minimally conscious state than a persistent vegetative state. This
distinction makes an enormous difference in making ethical decisions on
Terri's behalf. If Terri is sufficiently aware of her surroundings that
she can feel pleasure and suffer, if she is capable of understanding to
some degree how she is being treated, then in my judgment it would be
wrong to bring about her death by withdrawing food and water.
At the time of this writing, Terri Schiavo, as the result of the
decisions based on what I have argued to be a faulty diagnosis of
persistent vegetative state, has been without food or water for 5 days.
She is thus at risk of death or serious injury unless the provision of
food and water can be restored. Terri Schiavo lacks the capacity to
consent to emergency protective services and must trust others to act on
her behalf. If she were to be transferred to another facility, it would
be medically necessary first to initiate hydration and ensure that her
serum electrolytes are within normal values.
How medicine and society choose to think about Terri [Schindler] Schiavo
will influence what kind of people we will be as we evaluate and respond
to the needs of the most vulnerable people among us. When serious
doubts exist as to whether a cognitively impaired person is or is not
consciously aware, even if these doubts cannot be conclusively resolved,
it is better to err on the side of protecting vulnerable life.
Respectfully submitted,
William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D., M.A., F.A.A.N.
[signature]
Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me this 23[rd] day of
March, 2005, by William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D.
[notary stamp and signature]
======================================================================
articles: livelier ones are by Thomas Sowell and William Kristol. Eric
Cohen's is very thoughtful.
http://www.townhall.com
Cal Thomas: Schiavo case matters in symbol and substance
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3adfseF68nkocU1%40individual.net
Justifications for taking of human life?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3aj33dF67kgcuU2%40individual.net
any atheists against Terri Schindler Schiavo's being starved to death?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3adrlvF69l60hU1%40individual.net
1997 Wesley Smith on Germany's slippery slope slide from devaluing some
human life to a little euthanasia/ killing to mass killings
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3abe1cF6ac7t2U1%40individual.net
ACLU: Legal Terrorists
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/27/195402.shtml
Terri Schindler Schiavo Case
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/16/223430.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43463
What, if anything, will you do to help Terri and stop a judiciary and
ACLU run amok?
action items to help Terri
http://www.terrisfight.org/actionitems.html
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
15 Jul 2005 05:06:41 AM |
|
|
One could say that Luther considered the Jews to be as we consider
nazi's. He argued this on account of the Jewish belief of being the
chosen people. But as before this is also Luther's problem of not being
able to rhyme equality with uniqueness theologically IMO, and a problem
of violent hatered for anyone holding a different belief.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
15 Jul 2005 03:59:59 PM |
|
|
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121422001.510179.29060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
One could say that Luther considered the Jews to be as we consider
nazi's.
One could say that the sun rises in the west. And one would be just
as wrong. We consider the Nazis as racist murderers. Is that how you
consider Jews? Or are you going to hide behind the third person
indeterminate?
He argued this on account of the Jewish belief of being the
chosen people.
Nonsense. He based his hatred on the refusal of the Jews to recognize
Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Luther actually started out well-disposed
toward Jews. He had high hopes that his reforms would attract them to
conversion. When they didn't convert, he turned against them. The
Jewish belief in being "chosen" was a constant before and after Luther's
change of attitude, so that wasn't it.
But as before this is also Luther's problem of not being
able to rhyme equality with uniqueness theologically IMO,
Rhyme?
and a problem
of violent hatered for anyone holding a different belief.
He didn't hate everyone for holding a different belief. He didn't hate
Catholics; he wanted to reform their practice. He didn't start out hating
Jews.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
Deadrat
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
16 Jul 2005 06:04:12 AM |
|
|
Like I said, Luther much conceives of Jews as nazi's in defaming them.
It's therefore perverse to use Luther's book in support of Nazism, but
which regardless of perversity, did happen, and did have the effect of
supporting the Nazi's, because of the violent hatered in the book.
"There is one thing about which they boast and pride them selves beyond
measure, and that is their descent from the foremost people on earth,
from Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, and from the twelve
patriarchs, and thus from the holy people of Israel. St. Paul himself
admits this when he says in Romans 9:5: *Quorum patres*, that is, "To
them belong the patriarchs, and of their race is the Christ," etc. And
Christ himself declares in John 4:22, "Salvation is from the Jews."
Therefore they boast of being the noblest, yes, the only noble people
on earth. In comparison with them and in their eyes we Gentiles (Goyim)
are not human; in fact we hardly deserve to be considered poor worms by
them. For we are not of that high and noble blood, lineage, birth, and
descent. This is their argument, and indeed I think it is the greatest
and strongest reason for their pride and boasting.
Therefore, God has to endure that in their synagogues, their prayers,
songs, doctrines, and their whole life, they come and stand before him
and plague him grievously (if I may speak of God in such a human
fashion). Thus he must listen to their boasts and their praises to him
for setting them apart from the Gentiles, for letting them be descended
from the holy patriarchs, and for selecting them to be his holy and
peculiar people, etc. And there is no limit and no end to this boasting
about their descent and their physical birth from the fathers.
And to fill the measure of their raving, mad, and stupid folly, they
boast and they thank God, in the first place, because they were created
as human beings and not as animals; in the second place. because they
are Israelites and not Goyim (Gentiles); in the third place because
they were created as males and not as females. They did not learn such
tomfoolery from Israel but from the Goyim. For history records that the
Greek Plato daily accorded God such praise and thanksgiving-if such
arrogance and blasphemy may be termed praise of God. This man, too,
praised his gods for these three items: that he was a human being and
not an animal; a male and not a female; a Greek and not a non-Greek or
barbarian. This is a fool's boast, the gratitude of a barbarian who
blasphemes God! Similarly, the Italians fancy themselves the only human
beings; they imagine that all other people in the world are nonhumans,
mere ducks or mice by comparison. "
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robin Levett" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
17 Jul 2005 04:14:21 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Like I said, Luther much conceives of Jews as nazi's in defaming them.
It's therefore perverse to use Luther's book in support of Nazism, but
which regardless of perversity, did happen, and did have the effect of
supporting the Nazi's, because of the violent hatered in the book.
You appear to have accidentally forgotten to quote the paragraphs
immediately preceding these word - here, let me help you by adding them
back, and seeing if they change the context:-
"I had made up my mind to write no more either about the Jews or against
them. But since I learned that those miserable and accursed people do not
cease to lure to themselves even us, that is, the Christians, I have
published this little book, so that I might be found among those who
opposed such poisonous activities of the Jews and who warned the Christians
to be on their guard against them. I would not have believed that a
Christian could be duped by the Jews into taking their exile and
wretchedness upon himself. However, the devil is the god of the world, and
wherever God's word is absent he has an easy task, not only with the weak
but also with the strong. May God help us. Amen.
Grace and peace in the Lord. Dear sir and good friend, I have received a
treatise in which a Jew engages in dialog with a Christian. He dares to
pervert the scriptural passages which we cite in testimony to our faith,
concerning our Lord Christ and Mary his mother, and to interpret them quite
differently. With this argument he thinks he can destroy the basis of our
faith.
This is my reply to you and to him. It is not my purpose to quarrel with the
Jews, nor to learn from them how they interpret or understand Scripture; I
know all of that very well already. Much less do I propose to convert the
Jews, for that is impossible. Those two excellent men, Lyra and Burgensis,
together with others, truthfully described the Jews' vile interpretation
for us two hundred and one hundred years ago respectively. Indeed they
refuted it thoroughly. However, this was no help at all to the Jews, and
they have grown steadily worse.
They have failed to learn any lesson from the terrible distress that has
been theirs for over fourteen hundred years in exile. Nor can they obtain
any end or definite terminus of this, as they suppose, by means of the
vehement cries and laments to God. If these blows do not help, it is
resonable to assume that our talking and explaining will help even less.
Therefore a Christian should be content and not argue with the Jews. But if
you have to or want to talk with them, do not say any more than this:
"Listen, Jew, are you aware that Jerusalem and your sovereignty, together
with your temple and priesthood, have been destroyed for over 1,460 years?"
For this year, which we Christians write as the year 1542 since the birth
of Christ, is exactly 1,468 years, going on fifteen hundred years, since
Vespasian and Titus destroyed Jerusalem and expelled the Jews from the
city. Let the Jews bite on this nut and dispute this question as long as
they wish.
For such ruthless wrath of God is sufficient evidence that they assuredly
have erred and gone astray. Even a child can comprehend this. For one dare
not regard God as so cruel that he would punish his own people so long, so
terribly, so unmercifully, and in addition keep silent, comforting them
neither with words nor with deeds, and fixing no time limit and no end to
it. Who would have faith, hope, or love toward such a God? Therefore this
work of wrath is proof that the Jews, surely rejected by God, are no longer
his people, and neither is he any longer their God. This is in accord with
Hosea 1:9, "Call his name Not my people, for you are not my people and I am
not your God." Yes, unfortunately, this is their lot, truly a terrible one.
They may interpret this as they will; we see the facts before our eyes, and
these do not deceive us.
If there were but a spark of reason or understanding in them, they would
surely say to themselves: "O Lord God, something has gone wrong with us.
Our misery is too great, too long, too severe; God has forgotten us!" etc.
To be sure, I am not a Jew, but I really do not like to contemplate God's
awful wrath toward this people. It sends a shudder of fear through body and
soul, for I ask, What will the eternal wrath of God in hell be like toward
false Christians and all unbelievers? Well, let the Jews regard our Lord
Jesus as they will. We behold the fulfillment of the words spoken by him in
Luke 21:20: "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know
that its desolation has come near ... for these are days of vengeance. For
great distress shall be upon the earth and wrath upon this people.
In short, as has already been said, do not engage much in debate with Jews
about the articles of our faith. From their youth they have been so
nurtured with venom and rancour against our Lord that there is no hope
until they reach the point where their misery finally makes them pliable
and they are forced to confess that the Messiah has come, and that he is
our Jesus. Until such a time it is much too early, yes, it is useless to
argue with them about how God is triune, how he became man, and how Mary is
the mother of God. No human reason nor any human heart will ever grant
these things, much less the embittered, venomous, blind heart of the Jews.
As has already been said, what God cannot reform with such cruel blows, we
will be unable to change with words and works. Moses was unable to reform
the Pharaoh by means of plagues, miracles, pleas, or threats; he had to let
him drown in the sea.
Now, in order to strengthen our faith, we want to deal with a few crass
follies of the Jews in their belief and their exegesis of the Scriptures,
since they so maliciously revile our faith. If this should move any Jew to
reform and repent, so much the better. We are now not talking with the Jews
but about the Jews and their dealings, so that our Germans, too, might be
informed."
"There is one thing about which they boast and pride them selves beyond
measure, and that is their descent from the foremost people on earth,
from Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, and from the twelve
patriarchs, and thus from the holy people of Israel. St. Paul himself
admits this when he says in Romans 9:5: *Quorum patres*, that is, "To
them belong the patriarchs, and of their race is the Christ," etc. And
Christ himself declares in John 4:22, "Salvation is from the Jews."
Therefore they boast of being the noblest, yes, the only noble people
on earth. In comparison with them and in their eyes we Gentiles (Goyim)
are not human; in fact we hardly deserve to be considered poor worms by
them. For we are not of that high and noble blood, lineage, birth, and
descent. This is their argument, and indeed I think it is the greatest
and strongest reason for their pride and boasting.
Therefore, God has to endure that in their synagogues, their prayers,
songs, doctrines, and their whole life, they come and stand before him
and plague him grievously (if I may speak of God in such a human
fashion). Thus he must listen to their boasts and their praises to him
for setting them apart from the Gentiles, for letting them be descended
from the holy patriarchs, and for selecting them to be his holy and
peculiar people, etc. And there is no limit and no end to this boasting
about their descent and their physical birth from the fathers.
And to fill the measure of their raving, mad, and stupid folly, they
boast and they thank God, in the first place, because they were created
as human beings and not as animals; in the second place. because they
are Israelites and not Goyim (Gentiles); in the third place because
they were created as males and not as females. They did not learn such
tomfoolery from Israel but from the Goyim. For history records that the
Greek Plato daily accorded God such praise and thanksgiving-if such
arrogance and blasphemy may be termed praise of God. This man, too,
praised his gods for these three items: that he was a human being and
not an animal; a male and not a female; a Greek and not a non-Greek or
barbarian. This is a fool's boast, the gratitude of a barbarian who
blasphemes God! Similarly, the Italians fancy themselves the only human
beings; they imagine that all other people in the world are nonhumans,
mere ducks or mice by comparison. "
Funnily enough, I do believe it does. It suggests that his issues as to the
Jewish belief that they are the chosen people aren't about their alleged
lack of belief in equality. Instead, he is saying that the Jews ought to
know that their arguments in this respect are wrong, given the way that
their god has treated them over so many years. And, more importantly, that
he has given up on trying to convert them, and is simply trying to show the
rest of the world that they are wrong (ie that they should convert to
Christianity).
--
Robin Levett
rlevett@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
18 Jul 2005 01:18:22 AM |
|
|
Robin Levett wrote:
You appear to have accidentally forgotten to quote the paragraphs
immediately preceding these word - here, let me help you by adding them
back, and seeing if they change the context:-
I did not quote eons of text which no-one will read, I quoted a few
passages which are representative of Luther's line of argument.
Funnily enough, I do believe it does. It suggests that his issues as to the
Jewish belief that they are the chosen people aren't about their alleged
lack of belief in equality. Instead, he is saying that the Jews ought to
know that their arguments in this respect are wrong, given the way that
their god has treated them over so many years. And, more importantly, that
he has given up on trying to convert them, and is simply trying to show the
rest of the world that they are wrong (ie that they should convert to
Christianity).
You do not believe it is about their supposed lack of belief in
equality, yet Luther rages against them on account of that they
consider themselves so special by their blood and such, and that in
other passages he traces back common ancestry, to Noah, and to Adam and
Eve, and blasts Jews for supposedly considering the "Goyim" as not even
human, and blasts the italians for considering the rest of humanity
ducks or mice, and blasts Plato for his, and so on.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robin Levett" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
18 Jul 2005 02:06:11 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Robin Levett wrote:
You appear to have accidentally forgotten to quote the paragraphs
immediately preceding these word - here, let me help you by adding them
back, and seeing if they change the context:-
I did not quote eons of text which no-one will read, I quoted a few
passages which are representative of Luther's line of argument.
But reading the full text shows that they are not representative.
Funnily enough, I do believe it does. It suggests that his issues as to
the Jewish belief that they are the chosen people aren't about their
alleged
lack of belief in equality. Instead, he is saying that the Jews ought to
know that their arguments in this respect are wrong, given the way that
their god has treated them over so many years. And, more importantly,
that he has given up on trying to convert them, and is simply trying to
show the rest of the world that they are wrong (ie that they should
convert to Christianity).
You do not believe it is about their supposed lack of belief in
equality, yet Luther rages against them on account of that they
consider themselves so special by their blood and such, and that in
other passages he traces back common ancestry, to Noah, and to Adam and
Eve, and blasts Jews for supposedly considering the "Goyim" as not even
human, and blasts the italians for considering the rest of humanity
ducks or mice, and blasts Plato for his, and so on.
So he does - but the context shows that he is blasting these pretensions to
show the contrast between their pretensions and their then current position
in society; which, in his view meant that their beliefs were shown to be
false and hence that they really really oughta have converted when he
offered them the chance
--
Robin Levett
rlevett@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
18 Jul 2005 03:28:00 AM |
|
|
No I don't think so. The original debate between the Jew and the
Christian appears to have been a Jew priding the Jewish race having
produced Jesus, by mother mary being Jewish. So from there Luther's
argument is generally all against a specialness by blood of the Jews,
against a specialness of Jesus by blood, and generally towards equality
by common descent, etc.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
18 Jul 2005 01:13:42 PM |
|
|
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121675280.151303.96530@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No I don't think so. The original debate between the Jew and the
Christian appears to have been a Jew priding the Jewish race having
produced Jesus,
Do you know any Jewish law? Do you know any Jewish history?
Heck. Do you know any Jews? (Hint: "Messianic" Jews aren't.)
by mother mary being Jewish. So from there Luther's
argument is generally all against a specialness by blood of the Jews,
against a specialness of Jesus by blood, and generally towards equality
by common descent, etc.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "josephus" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
18 Jul 2005 06:36:36 AM |
|
|
wrote:
No I don't think so. The original debate between the Jew and the
Christian appears to have been a Jew priding the Jewish race having
produced Jesus, by mother mary being Jewish. So from there Luther's
argument is generally all against a specialness by blood of the Jews,
against a specialness of Jesus by blood, and generally towards equality
by common descent, etc.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
The original debate was an attack by the church. No one else was doing
this. Not the Egyptians who welcomed both. it was the Christians that
slaughtered the Jews. Now explain how the Jews had any part of this
"debate" This terrible action was a decision of the church. The
attachment of common descent to antisemitism is like saying Luther knew
of Darwin. it is an anachronism.
josephus
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robin Levett" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
18 Jul 2005 03:35:20 PM |
|
|
wrote:
No I don't think so. The original debate between the Jew and the
Christian appears to have been a Jew priding the Jewish race having
produced Jesus, by mother mary being Jewish. So from there Luther's
argument is generally all against a specialness by blood of the Jews,
against a specialness of Jesus by blood, and generally towards equality
by common descent, etc.
It's perhaps not very amazing that in order to make this point you snip all
context; could it be bacause even you can see that in context it's an
unsupportable assertion?
--
Robin Levett
rlevett@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
19 Jul 2005 01:51:17 AM |
|
|
It's not an unsupportable assertion since it is referred to in the text
what the original debate was about. Luther wants to stop such debate
because he sees it as poisoning Christianity with notions of
bloodpride.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robin Levett" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
19 Jul 2005 03:17:48 AM |
|
|
wrote:
It's not an unsupportable assertion since it is referred to in the text
what the original debate was about. Luther wants to stop such debate
because he sees it as poisoning Christianity with notions of
bloodpride.
And once again you've snipped the text to which you're replying.
The text (as I quoted it - in context) showed that your interpretation is
just wrong.
--
Robin Levett
rlevett@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
19 Jul 2005 04:37:25 AM |
|
|
Just wrong how? Are you denying that the original debate referred to
was in Luther's view about Jewish bloodpride for having produced Jesus?
Gee my explanation makes consistent sense of the line of argument in
the text, where your explanation just gives no reason at all why Luther
thought to stop debating with Jews.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
19 Jul 2005 11:31:34 AM |
|
|
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121765845.577465.97490@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Just wrong how? Are you denying that the original debate referred to
was in Luther's view about Jewish bloodpride for having produced Jesus?
Gee my explanation makes consistent sense of the line of argument in
the text, where your explanation just gives no reason at all why Luther
thought to stop debating with Jews.
But why did he decide to start hating them?
(Do you believe there were any Jews who were "bloodproud"
because of Jesus?)
Deadrat
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
19 Jul 2005 04:51:55 AM |
|
|
"Grace and peace in the Lord. Dear sir and good friend, I have received
a treatise in which a Jew engages in dialog with a Christian. He dares
to pervert the scriptural passages which we cite in testimony to our
faith, concerning our Lord Christ and Mary his mother, and to interpret
them quite differently. With this argument he thinks he can destroy the
basis of our faith."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
19 Jul 2005 11:34:29 AM |
|
|
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121766715.813522.136530@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
"Grace and peace in the Lord. Dear sir and good friend, I have received
a treatise in which a Jew engages in dialog with a Christian. He dares
to pervert the scriptural passages which we cite in testimony to our
faith, concerning our Lord Christ and Mary his mother, and to interpret
them quite differently. With this argument he thinks he can destroy the
basis of our faith."
The Jews of the time were insular both by choice and persecution.
They didn't willingly "engage in dialogs" with Christians. They were
sometimes forced to by Christians. Jews didn't (and don't) really
care about Christian theology.
Deadrat
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
19 Jul 2005 04:56:53 AM |
|
|
"There is one thing about which they boast and pride them selves beyond
measure, and that is their descent from the foremost people on earth,
from Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, and from the twelve
patriarchs, and thus from the holy people of Israel. St. Paul himself
admits this when he says in Romans 9:5: *Quorum patres*, that is, "To
them belong the patriarchs, and of their race is the Christ," etc. And
Christ himself declares in John 4:22, "Salvation is from the Jews."
Therefore they boast of being the noblest, yes, the only noble people
on earth. In comparison with them and in their eyes we Gentiles (Goyim)
are not human; in fact we hardly deserve to be considered poor worms by
them. For we are not of that high and noble blood, lineage, birth, and
descent. This is their argument, and indeed I think it is the greatest
and strongest reason for their pride and boasting."
.
|
|
|
| User: "josephus" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
19 Jul 2005 08:01:57 AM |
|
|
wrote:
"There is one thing about which they boast and pride them selves beyond
measure, and that is their descent from the foremost people on earth,
from Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, and from the twelve
patriarchs, and thus from the holy people of Israel. St. Paul himself
admits this when he says in Romans 9:5: *Quorum patres*, that is, "To
them belong the patriarchs, and of their race is the Christ," etc. And
Christ himself declares in John 4:22, "Salvation is from the Jews."
Therefore they boast of being the noblest, yes, the only noble people
on earth. In comparison with them and in their eyes we Gentiles (Goyim)
are not human; in fact we hardly deserve to be considered poor worms by
them. For we are not of that high and noble blood, lineage, birth, and
descent. This is their argument, and indeed I think it is the greatest
and strongest reason for their pride and boasting."
There is justification here for believing you are an antisemite. you
quote without comment and give tacit approval to. Besides not liking
evolution, you do not like Jews. That is by definition an antisemite.
josephus
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
19 Jul 2005 09:37:21 AM |
|
|
Well it's certainly better to make these baseless slanderous
accusations for all to see, then to do it in email, but I suggest a
further improvement would be to do it in private with a mirror.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
19 Jul 2005 11:41:47 AM |
|
|
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121783841.067015.57920@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Well it's certainly better to make these baseless slanderous
accusations for all to see, then to do it in email, but I suggest a
further improvement would be to do it in private with a mirror.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
You absolutely have no one but yourself to blame, so don't
go all pious. You have been told repeatedly to quote what
you respond to. You have been told repeatedly how to do so.
You have been told repeatedly that it is an ethical issue.
And now you've been misunderstood.
You might wanna be checking that mirror before recommending
it to others.
Deadrat
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robin Levett" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
23 Jul 2005 12:12:05 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Just wrong how? Are you denying that the original debate referred to
was in Luther's view about Jewish bloodpride for having produced Jesus?
It would help if you didn't continually snip away the context, but yes, I
am. It would also help if you left the goalposts where they were. Your
original claim was:-
"You fail to note that Luther's sole argument in that anti-semite book was
their supposed rejection of the doctrine of human equality."
Can I suggest that you have a read of the essay at this URL, and look at the
entirety of what Martin Luther wrote, both in the pamphlet you quotemined
from, and elsewhere:-
http://www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/A/AlbrechtMartin/AlbrechtMartin.htm
Extracted from the introductory passage:-
"Luther's kind words and compassionate understanding produced noticeable
results. His pamphlet, "That Christ was born a Jew" met with special favor.
The Jews read and circulated his writings. One Jewish historian even said
this of Luther's works, "The Jews of Antwerp sent them to Spain, their
former homeland, and even as far away as Palestine."5 So, Luther's writing
did produce definite results. However, these were not the results that
Luther was expecting. Needless to say, the Jews of Germany did not beat a
path to Luther's door. Mainly for this reason Luther's views of the Jews
began to change."
A paragraph from the conclusion of the essay sums up the author's view:-
"As stated earlier, Luther's reasons were religious. The word of God was
Luther's greatest treasure. His love for the word prompted him to react
violently when others disrespected the word. Heinrich Bornkamm writes
"Luther's love for the Old Testament, to which he dedicated by far his
scholarly efforts, and his rejection of post New Testament Jewry are two
sides of the same thing." 27 As another scholar states, "The full title of
his blast, usually quoted as Against the Jews, reads Against the Jews and
their Lies, with emphasis resting on the second part."28 So, Luther held no
special hatred for the Jews as a race; he did not, however, have much use
for their rejection of Christ."
It was their rejection of Christ that led to his hatred; as I have been
saying.
For information - Albrecht is a Lutheran pastor.
Gee my explanation makes consistent sense of the line of argument in
the text, where your explanation just gives no reason at all why Luther
thought to stop debating with Jews.
Had you not snipped it away...
The reason is simple - they refused to convert.
--
Robin Levett
rlevett@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
24 Jul 2005 03:31:20 AM |
|
|
You are merely referring to an authority to substantiate your opinion,
not referring to the text. Again the use of this book in support of
Nazism is perverse because it argues quite specifically against Jewish
doctrine of noble blood, ridicules the Italians for consdering other
people mice and ducks etc. and then goes to argue for equality based on
Noah, and Adam and Eve, etc. That is the line of argument in the book,
starting from the very beginning where Luther quite specifically refers
to a debate between a Jew and a Christian, about Mary conceiving Jesus.
Now how in the world you can ignore that, when the issue is Lutheran
support for Nazism, is beyond me.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
24 Jul 2005 02:07:38 PM |
|
|
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122193880.593110.104290@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You are merely referring to an authority to substantiate your opinion,
not referring to the text.
Again I remind you of your ethical lapse in not quoting the argument
to which you respond? Do you not understand the ethical ponit?
When the question is the words and intent of a writer, referring to
the works of the author is acceptable evidence. Do you not
understand this?
<snip>
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
Deadrat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raven" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
20 Aug 2005 03:52:06 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Hitler was making National Socialism into a secular religion
The Nazi belt-buckle inscription: "Gott Mit Uns" (God With Us).
-- http://www.redrat.net/thoughts/iraq/gott_mit_uns.jpg
The Nazi Party's platform, item 24: "The Party, as such,
stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in
the matter of creed to any particular confession...."
-- http://www.hitler.org/writings/programme
Hitler addressing the Reichstag, March 1933: "The Government
of the Reich, who regard Christianity as the unshakable
foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation,...."
Hitler writing to the Nazi Party, July 1933: "The fact that
the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means
the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the
Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly
and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism
is hostile to religion is a lie."
Hitler speaking in Berlin, October 1933: "We were convinced
that the people needs and requires this faith. We have
therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement,
and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations:
we have stamped it out."
These and more quotes: http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm
"Hitler's Christianity": http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
"The Religion of Hitler": http://tinyurl.com/8rabz
"Religious Views of Adolf Hitler": http://tinyurl.com/9ecat
"Hitler regarded himself as a Catholic until he died. 'I am now
as before a Catholic and will always remain so,' he told Gerhard
Engel... in 1941.
"There was really no reason for Hitler to doubt his good standing
as a Catholic. The Catholic press in Germany was eager to curry
his favor, and the princes of the Catholic Church never asked for
his excommunication. ...
"When Hitler narrowly escaped assassination in Munich in November,
1939, he gave the credit to providence. 'Now I am completely
content,' he exclaimed. 'The fact that I left the Burgerbraukeller
earlier than usual is a corroboration of Providence's intention to
let me reach my goal.' Catholic newspapers throughout the Reich
echoed this, declaring that it was a miraculous working of
providence that had protected their Fuhrer. One cardinal, Michael
Faulhaber, sent a telegram instructing that a Te Deum be sung in
the cathedral of Munich, 'to thank Divine Providence in the name
of the archdiocese for the Fuhrer's fortunate escape.' The Pope
also sent his special personal congratulations!
"Later the Pope was to publicly describe Hitler's opposition to
Russia as a 'high-minded gallantry in defense of the foundation
of Christian culture.'"
-- http://www.ffrf.org/pennstation/hitler.html
"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as
a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness,
surrounded by only a few followers, recognized these Jews for
what they are and summoned men to fight against them and who,
God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.
In boundless love, as a Christian and as a man, I read through
the passage which tells us how the Lord rose at last in His might
and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of
vipers and adders. How terrific was the fight for the world
against the Jewish poison." -- Adolf Hitler, "My New Order", 1922
-- http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/march97/holocaust.html
"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."
-- Adolf Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, 1925
More excerpts: http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm
Hitler scheduled his first major pogrom, in November 1938, on
Martin Luther's birthday, to honor the German Christian who wrote:
"Verily a hopeless, wicked, venomous and devilish thing is the
existence of these Jews, who for fourteen hundred years have been,
and still are, our pest, torment and misfortune. They are just
devils and nothing more." "Firstly, their synagogues should be
set on fire. Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down
and destroyed. Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer
books and Talmuds. Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under
threat of death to teach any more. Fifthly, passport and travelling
privileges should be absolutely forbidden to the Jews. Sixthly,
they ought to be stopped from usury. Seventhly, let the young and
strong Jews and Jewesses be given the flail, the axe, the *****, the
spade, the distaff, and spindle, and let them earn their bread by
the sweat of their noses. We ought to drive the rascally lazy bones
out of our system. Therefore away with them."
-- Martin Luther, _On the Jews and Their Lies_, 1543
http://members.aol.com/PS418/antisem.html
See also: http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/back/hakeem/holocaust4.html
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo/guilt.html
http://www.nobeliefs.com/luther.htm
But antisemitism was already an old tradition by Luther's time.
The Germans who joined the First Crusade "inveighed against the
folly of proceeding to the Holy Land to destroy the Turks, while
they left behind them so many Jews, the still more inveterate
enemies of Christ. They swore fierce vengeance against this
unhappy race, and murdered all the Hebrews they could lay their
hands upon, first subjecting them to the most horrible mutilation."
-- Charles Mackay, _Extraordinary Popular Delusions
and the Madness of Crowds_, 1841.
http://webroots.org/library/usamisc/mepd0008.html
Catholic liturgy still contained the words "perfidious Jews"
until 1961.
Accurate scholarship can
Unearth the whole offence
From Luther until now
That has driven a culture mad,
Find what occurred at Linz,
What huge imago made
A psychopathic god:
I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.
-- W.H. Auden, "September 1, 1939"
--
Raven | "I want the man bearing the cross to be
@ | its only victim."
solaria. | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
sol.net | -- Eugene Vintras (1807-1875)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
20 Aug 2005 07:18:56 AM |
|
|
Raven wrote:
<snip>
That is a lot of empty rhetoric, if you do not show what the main
beliefs of Nazism / Hitler were, how those beliefs were instrumental in
genocide, from where those beliefs derived.
The main beliefs are as follows:
All individuals are engaged in a ruthless struggle for survival. Those
who do not fight don't deserve to live. Nations like individuals are
also engaged in a ruthless struggle for survival. The Aryan races
represents the apex of human achievement. The Aryan race, masters of
creativity, has a sacred mission to dominate and propogate itself
around the earth. Inferiors, such as the disabled, and parasatic races
such as Jews, should be eliminated.
The law of nature that the higher should dominate the lower is the
basis of all Nazi doctrine. In this sense Nazism is Christian, or
Jewish, that it takes from the entire bible, old testament and new
testament, this one "natural" law, and then the Nazi's proceed to build
a consistent worldview on this one law, discarding all in the bible
that is not consistent with it. It is of course impossible that such a
thing would happen, without the intellectual climate of opinion that
resulted from the Darwinian revolution. Hitler the Darwinist-Christian
rides on a wave of pseudoscientific social darwinist discourse
supported by a respected Darwinist science discipline, which
technological offspring, the medicine of eugenics, was already calling
for and implementing racist measures around the world.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
