tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5145942.post659153355503088341..comments2023-05-31T08:16:14.047-07:00Comments on Armchair Intellectual: Gideonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02806423185226885594noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5145942.post-37675189482236024722007-12-22T12:16:00.000-08:002007-12-22T12:16:00.000-08:00Prager writes that:Communism and Nazism were indee...Prager writes that:<BR/><I>Communism and Nazism were indeed religion-like in their hold on people, but they were completely secular movements and doctrines.</I> I certainly think Wolfgang's helpful quote casts some doubt on the supposed "completely secular" nature of Nazism.<BR/><BR/>Burgess brings up a good point about mixed nature of the institutions involved. Let me attempt to answer the Gideonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02806423185226885594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5145942.post-10277334537609598092007-12-22T06:25:00.000-08:002007-12-22T06:25:00.000-08:00If I understand his point correctly, Wolfgang brin...If I understand his point correctly, Wolfgang brings up a crucial issue: To what extent was the Nazi Reich religious (either Christian or pagan or both) vs. secular (if that means nonreligious)?<BR/><BR/>Of course, history is messy. Any <I>actual</I> individual or private organization or regime can be a mixture of the two elements. Two questions would then arise:<BR/>1. Was the Reich, as the Burgess Laughlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13865479709475171678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5145942.post-1529785038266093962007-12-22T05:57:00.000-08:002007-12-22T05:57:00.000-08:00German soldiers from 1934 on should die not withou...German soldiers from 1934 on should die not without god. Look at the Hitler oath (Service oath for soldiers of the armed forces):<BR/><BR/>I swear by God this sacred oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Führer of the German Reich and people, supreme commander of the armed forces, and that I shall at all times be ready, as a brave soldier, to give my life for this Wolfganghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01068987101667133922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5145942.post-39797102050227002772007-12-21T08:43:00.000-08:002007-12-21T08:43:00.000-08:00Thank you for your comments.With respect to your f...Thank you for your comments.<BR/><BR/>With respect to your first point, yes, I have heard Prager make comments to that effect. He once talked about how happy he is to have a systematic view of the world that guides him in evaluating specific events. Furthermore, much of his commentary of the last 20 or so years has tried to argue for the superiority of a religious world view to any secular world Gideonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02806423185226885594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5145942.post-29104206785429466032007-12-21T05:44:00.000-08:002007-12-21T05:44:00.000-08:00Your theme, that Prager is not essentializing, is ...Your theme, that Prager is not essentializing, is on target, I think. I have two points to suggest:<BR/><BR/>1. I wonder how Prager would define "religion"? My own, rough definition is that it is a type of worldview. That is the genus. By worldview, I mean a system of ideas that explain (1) the basic nature of the world(s) in which one lives; (2) man's own basic nature; and (3) what man should <IBurgess Laughlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13865479709475171678noreply@blogger.com