Should governments start regulating religion?

[JWeinCom]

Dulfite said:

JWeinCom said:

Nonsense.  Nazi Germany was a Christian state with about 50 percent of its citizens being protestant, and 30 percent being catholic.  Regardless of the regimes personal beliefs (which we have no reason to believe were atheistic) they publicly used religion as a tool to motivate.  Books regarding evolution ("Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel) were on banned books.  The state endorsed religious instruction.  

I would not go so far as to say Naziism was a Christian movement, but it certainly was not atheistic, so do not imply that it is.

As for Soviet Russia, yes they were atheistic, although their position on religion changed at many points throughout it history.  Opposition to religion was largely based largely on the fact that the previous abusive regime was deeply interwoven with the Russian Orthodox Church.  

However, it is still nonsense to claim that Soviets did this to their people "with the idea of no religion".  The idea of no religion was ancillary to the communist movement.  The movement was about a system of economics and government, and not about religion.  You cannot say that what happened in Soviet Russia was due to atheism any more than I could say that World War 1 was caused by religion because most of the parties were religious.

I was saying Soviet Union was atheistic, not Nazi Germany. However, now that you bring it up, in no way shape or form was Nazi Germany related to Christianity. They can call it whatever they want, as many people do, but nothing about Nazi Germany reflected Christ's commands and guidance laid out for us in the New Testament. Would Christ have wanted Jews imprisoned, tortured, and killed? Would Christ have wanted people to be hated for what they looked like or what their background was? No. People can claim that they are Christian, but if their lifestyle is standing against what Christianity is all about (being more Christlike), then they are lying. That isn't to say Christians don't sin, but rather if someone claims to be a Christian and their entire lifestyle contradicts that, with no remorse, then they are lying to themselves and others.

Regardless of what you think the MAIN causes of Nazi Germany and Communist Soviet were, they were both led by people that either had an extremely twisted and distorted religious view or people that believed nothing. The actions that they committed, the persecution of people of faith (particularly Jews in both Germany and U.S.S.R) were terrible, terrible crimes that make them no different than modern North Korea, ISIS, and Boko Haram (I don't have the concern to look up how their pathetic organization is spelled so not sure if that is right). Because their actions were horrible, people will always look to what could have driven those actions into fruition, and belief systems are something people always look for when determing the cause behind atrocities and benevolence.

In the context, I felt that you were implying that Nazi Germany was an atheist state.  If you weren't, then my bad.  As whether or not he was or was not a Christian in whatever sense you believe the word to mean isn't important.  What is, is whether or not Christianity was an influence, which I don't think we need to get into unless you'd like to.  And... I think you could make a pretty strong biblical case for torturing and killing Jews.  Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the point that those who do not believe in Jesus (for instance the Jews) deserve eternal torture?  The bible is filled with the murder of non-believers in yahweh and jesus.  Do you believe the whole bible to be true, or just the nice turn the other cheek parts?

Anyway, this is the no true scotsman fallacy.  If whenever anybody takes actions based on their religion that you disapprove of, you brush it off by saying they're not true adherents of religion, then religion will come out looking squeaky clean.  However, when we consider, particularly in regards to Islam and Christianity, the frequency with which these religions are explicitly appealed to when attrocities are commited, then we should examine the religions closely to see if they are harmful, and if they are worth keeping around in the absence of any evidence.

Edit:  As a fair warning, I enjoy debating this issue and am absolutely trying to bait you :).  If you don't enjoy defending or debating your faith, then don't feel obligated to engage me.