What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Nazis Banned Crosses in Schools in 1937

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
134,290
Reaction score
16,118
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Why is "uniformity" of Christian worship a problem?

Well, let's see now. If your whole religion is based on "This Was the Son of God, and you should listen to what he says", then you would expect there to be some uniformity and agreement on what he actually said and what he stood for.

2000 years of schism, reformations, counter-reformations, burning heretics, inquisitions, would indicate- um, no, Jesus didn't make himself very clear.
 
OP
mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1

Mike Griffith
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
5,606
Reaction score
2,528
Points
420
Location
Virginia
I came across an interesting fact while reading Valkyrie: The Story of the Plot to Kill Hitler, by Its Last Member by Philip Freiherr Von Boeselager. The book was written by one of the plotters. He mentioned that in 1937, the Nazis ordered all crosses banned from schools.

Gee, who does that sound like?


By the way, Boeselager was the one who supplied the bombs that Stauffenberg used in his attempt to assassinate Hitler.
 
OP
mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1

Mike Griffith
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
5,606
Reaction score
2,528
Points
420
Location
Virginia
Why is "uniformity" of Christian worship a problem?

Well, let's see now. If your whole religion is based on "This Was the Son of God, and you should listen to what he says", then you would expect there to be some uniformity and agreement on what he actually said and what he stood for.

2000 years of schism, reformations, counter-reformations, burning heretics, inquisitions, would indicate- um, no, Jesus didn't make himself very clear.

So now you're defending the Nazis, hey? It's bad enough that you've defended Mao Tsetung and Joseph Stalin, but now you're justifying the Nazis' banning of crosses from schools?

By the way, starting in 1942, the Nazis also prohibited the army from celebrating Christmas. Gee, now, which American party has tried to erase Christmas, to the point of discouraging even saying "Merry Christmas"? Gee, who does that?
 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
48,930
Reaction score
12,433
Points
2,190
Location
Western Va.
A former KKK member, Hugo Black, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR wrote the majority opinion around 1947 that created the modern version of "separation of Church/State that was not based on Constitutional law but rather some fantasy based on personal correspondence. Through the decades (mostly) democrat institutions reversed the 1st Amendment right to Freedom of Religion to the point where local jurisdictions were sued by the ironically named ACLU for displaying a Christmas tree on public property. In the most ironic evidence of hypocrisy, the government continued to hold Christmas tree lighting ceremonies on federal property. The abuse continues until some clueless agnostic was conned into suing the government because he was offended by a 40 ft Cross on a forty year old Korean War monument. A chickenshit federal judge ordered the Cross bulldozed.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
134,290
Reaction score
16,118
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
By the way, Boeselager was the one who supplied the bombs that Stauffenberg used in his attempt to assassinate Hitler.

So what? The people in the plot to kill Hitler were all for Hitler and the war when Germany was winning. They don't get any credit for taking the coward's way out.

So now you're defending the Nazis, hey? It's bad enough that you've defended Mao Tsetung and Joseph Stalin, but now you're justifying the Nazis' banning of crosses from schools?

Naw, man, I defend historical accuracy... a concept you don't get.

Mao and Stalin were bastards. They weren't genocidal maniacs like Hitler.
Hitler was a bastard, but he was a bastard who had the full support of Christians at the time.

By the way, starting in 1942, the Nazis also prohibited the army from celebrating Christmas. Gee, now, which American party has tried to erase Christmas, to the point of discouraging even saying "Merry Christmas"? Gee, who does that?

Um, gee, you mean they thought the Army should "fight the war" instead of celebrate Christmas?

This is nothing new. After the 1914 "Christmas Truce" during World War I, when German and Allied troops got out of the trenches and exchanged gifts and celebrated together, the commands on both sides made sure that shit never happened again.

The Nazis did what the Christian Right does in this country, try to coopt Christianity to fit their own goals.

You know, like you fucking Mormons hate gays and Mexicans, just like Jesus did.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
134,290
Reaction score
16,118
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
A former KKK member, Hugo Black, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR wrote the majority opinion around 1947 that created the modern version of "separation of Church/State that was not based on Constitutional law but rather some fantasy based on personal correspondence. Through the decades (mostly) democrat institutions reversed the 1st Amendment right to Freedom of Religion to the point where local jurisdictions were sued by the ironically named ACLU for displaying a Christmas tree on public property. In the most ironic evidence of hypocrisy, the government continued to hold Christmas tree lighting ceremonies on federal property. The abuse continues until some clueless agnostic was conned into suing the government because he was offended by a 40 ft Cross on a forty year old Korean War monument. A chickenshit federal judge ordered the Cross bulldozed.

You talk like that's a bad thing.
 
OP
mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1

Mike Griffith
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
5,606
Reaction score
2,528
Points
420
Location
Virginia
Every place I've worked, without fail, without exception, it's been Democrats who objected to calling the office Christmas party a Christmas party. They said "some could find it offensive." They wanted to call it a "holiday party." I've also noticed that I've met few Democrats who will use the greeting "Merry Christmas" at Christmas time. One place where I worked, my team lead was a Democrat, and she objected to "Merry Christmas" in a team newsletter, even though the greeting was included with the greetings "Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year." She insisted that I drop "Merry Christmas" from the greeting.

Why is this a consistent pattern? Because most Democrats do not attend church, do not read the Bible, and do not believe that our Judeo-Christian heritage is worth preserving (heck, many of them deny that that heritage even exists).
 
Last edited:

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
134,290
Reaction score
16,118
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Every place I've worked, without fail, without exception, it's been Democrats who objected to calling the office Christmas party a Christmas party. The said "some could find it offensive." They wanted to call it a "holiday party."

Really? What I've seen is that companies that make that decision usually make the decision because not everyone is a Christian. I worked at a place where half the employees were Hindus and the owners were Jews. Funny, they called it a "Holiday Party". And then they held it in January so they could get a room, cheap.

One place where I worked, my team lead was a Democrat, and she objected to "Merry Christmas" in a team newsletter, even though the greeting was included with the greetings "Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year." She insisted that I drop "Merry Christmas" from the greeting.

And again, how many non-Christians did you have working there, Mormon Mike.

The only person I ever saw who had an objection to "Merry Christmas" on its own merits was a crazy Jehovah's Witless I worked with.

Why is this a consistent pattern? Because most Democrats do not attend church, do not read the Bible, and do not believe that our Judeo-Christian heritage is worth preserving (heck, many of them deny that that heritage even exists).

I don't attend church because I don't think if there is a supreme being, he really needs me groveling every Sunday.

I do read the bible. It's great for a laugh. Talking Snakes. Too funny.

A lot of the Founding Slave Rapists you love so much were Deists. They didn't believe in the bible any more than I did.

But even if they did, so what?

They also shit in Chamber Pots, believed that Bleeding people was a legitimate medical treatment, and as noted, they owned slaves while talking about all men being equal. People during that time still believed witchcraft was a thing. We evolved beyond them and their superstition.
 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
48,930
Reaction score
12,433
Points
2,190
Location
Western Va.
A former KKK member, Hugo Black, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR wrote the majority opinion around 1947 that created the modern version of "separation of Church/State that was not based on Constitutional law but rather some fantasy based on personal correspondence. Through the decades (mostly) democrat institutions reversed the 1st Amendment right to Freedom of Religion to the point where local jurisdictions were sued by the ironically named ACLU for displaying a Christmas tree on public property. In the most ironic evidence of hypocrisy, the government continued to hold Christmas tree lighting ceremonies on federal property. The abuse continues until some clueless agnostic was conned into suing the government because he was offended by a 40 ft Cross on a forty year old Korean War monument. A chickenshit federal judge ordered the Cross bulldozed.

You talk like that's a bad thing.
What? The 1st Amendment? Nobody could foresee the power of the media to influence Americans when entire institution decided to become a propaganda arm of a political party. FDR should have been wheeled out of the White House on his fat ass after issuing a freaking edict that called for the arrest and incarceration of American citizens without due process but with the cooperation of the media democrats made FDR a political icon. In a couple of years democrats would come after Christian schools that were perceived as a threat to the federal education system and that was the intent of the Separation Church/State decision. What goes around comes around and sooner or later the government will come after the rest of us and the media will sanction it as long as a democrat is in office.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
134,290
Reaction score
16,118
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Yes, I hit a mother lode of crazy.

What? The 1st Amendment? Nobody could foresee the power of the media to influence Americans when entire institution decided to become a propaganda arm of a political party.

When did this happen? Frankly, what I see is packaged news. You're a right winger, you tune in Fox. You are a left winger, you tune in MSBNC. You want in depth analysis, you watch PBS Newshour, but clearly, that doesn't have much of a market since it needs a subsidy.

FDR should have been wheeled out of the White House on his fat ass after issuing a freaking edict that called for the arrest and incarceration of American citizens without due process but with the cooperation of the media democrats made FDR a political icon.

Naw, what made FDR an icon was that he ended the Great Depression and saved the world from Fascism.

As for those Japanese-Americans who were detained (most were released after a year) That had widespread support. Nobody was pro-Japanese after Dec. 7, 1941. Think the crazy you wingnuts have unleashed on Chinese Americans, and then multiply that by about 1000.

In a couple of years democrats would come after Christian schools that were perceived as a threat to the federal education system and that was the intent of the Separation Church/State decision.
Actually, you are a little confused. THe main source of "Separation of Church and State" related to the Schools was a fellow named James Blaine. He was a noxious little Anti-Catholic bigot, who didn't want the Catholics setting up their own schools on the public dime.


He wanted to add the following amendment to the Constitution.

”No state shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any state for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect, nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations.”

While this Amendment failed to pass the Senate, this kind of language was incorporated into most state constitutions.

What goes around comes around and sooner or later the government will come after the rest of us and the media will sanction it as long as a democrat is in office.

Getting a touch hysterical, aren't you?

Most churches have the good sense to steer clear of politics. Why alienate half your congregation?
 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
48,930
Reaction score
12,433
Points
2,190
Location
Western Va.
Yes, I hit a mother lode of crazy.

What? The 1st Amendment? Nobody could foresee the power of the media to influence Americans when entire institution decided to become a propaganda arm of a political party.

When did this happen? Frankly, what I see is packaged news. You're a right winger, you tune in Fox. You are a left winger, you tune in MSBNC. You want in depth analysis, you watch PBS Newshour, but clearly, that doesn't have much of a market since it needs a subsidy.

FDR should have been wheeled out of the White House on his fat ass after issuing a freaking edict that called for the arrest and incarceration of American citizens without due process but with the cooperation of the media democrats made FDR a political icon.

Naw, what made FDR an icon was that he ended the Great Depression and saved the world from Fascism.

As for those Japanese-Americans who were detained (most were released after a year) That had widespread support. Nobody was pro-Japanese after Dec. 7, 1941. Think the crazy you wingnuts have unleashed on Chinese Americans, and then multiply that by about 1000.

In a couple of years democrats would come after Christian schools that were perceived as a threat to the federal education system and that was the intent of the Separation Church/State decision.
Actually, you are a little confused. THe main source of "Separation of Church and State" related to the Schools was a fellow named James Blaine. He was a noxious little Anti-Catholic bigot, who didn't want the Catholics setting up their own schools on the public dime.


He wanted to add the following amendment to the Constitution.

”No state shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any state for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect, nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations.”

While this Amendment failed to pass the Senate, this kind of language was incorporated into most state constitutions.

What goes around comes around and sooner or later the government will come after the rest of us and the media will sanction it as long as a democrat is in office.

Getting a touch hysterical, aren't you?

Most churches have the good sense to steer clear of politics. Why alienate half your congregation?Former KKK member Hugo Black wrote the majThe "good sense to steer clear of politics"? What does "good sense" mean?
Blaine died in 1893. Former KKK member Justice Hugo Black who died in 1971 wrote the majority opinion that created the modern version of Separation Church/State around 1947. The opinion was apparently based on some Jefferson correspondence rather than Constitutional law.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
134,290
Reaction score
16,118
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Blaine died in 1893. Former KKK member Justice Hugo Black who died in 1971 wrote the majority opinion that created the modern version of Separation Church/State around 1947. The opinion was apparently based on some Jefferson correspondence rather than Constitutional law.

Blaine is why most of the Separation of Church and State shit got codified into law. All Hugo Black did was interpret the law as written.

In short, Protestant bigots tried to discriminate against Catholics, and it turned around and bit them in the ass.
 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
48,930
Reaction score
12,433
Points
2,190
Location
Western Va.
Blaine died in 1893. Former KKK member Justice Hugo Black who died in 1971 wrote the majority opinion that created the modern version of Separation Church/State around 1947. The opinion was apparently based on some Jefferson correspondence rather than Constitutional law.

Blaine is why most of the Separation of Church and State shit got codified into law. All Hugo Black did was interpret the law as written.

In short, Protestant bigots tried to discriminate against Catholics, and it turned around and bit them in the ass.
We are getting off on a tangent here. Blaine's amendment seems reasonable that taxpayers shouldn't be forced to support Churches but a hundred years later the tax code would force Christian Churches to offer birth control to employees. The point is that the 1st Amendment was intended to protect religious freedom but (mostly) democrat regimes are in the business of tearing down symbols of religious freedom just like the Nazi's (and the Stalinists) did.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
2,324
Reaction score
1,470
Points
903
The Nazi Party views on Christianity are clearely laid out in the Hitler Youth Manual for all to see, available at sites like archive.org and other places, so there is zero need to pretend the usual clown car full of the resident demented faggots and commies driving through this thread ever need be taken seriously on anything.
 

John T. Ford

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Messages
5,525
Reaction score
6,841
Points
1,908
How odd con-sidering they still had crosses on the side of their tanks and planes.
Not odd at all.

One represented God.

The other represent the god of government.

You know ....

The one you worship.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
2,324
Reaction score
1,470
Points
903
Most school districts are run locally and are independent; the establishment clause clearly prevents government from banning crosses from any premises, period, if anybody so chooses to place one there or to preach from any public property.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
2,324
Reaction score
1,470
Points
903

The Nazi view is nearly the same as the Marxist view, which should be no surprise since many of the leading Nazis were former left wingers. Look up Goebbels and Himmler's fondness for the National Bolshevism wing of Strasserites early in Nazi history.
 

John T. Ford

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Messages
5,525
Reaction score
6,841
Points
1,908
NAZIs and neoNAZIS like this cross: View attachment 498916 came from the Teutonic Order of RELIGIOUS knights.
hill.jpg


iron-cross.jpg



You mean like the one the Throuple Queen Democratic Rep. Katie Hill has?
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$505.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top