User talk:Mantanmoreland/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Lutheran doctrines of the orders of creation 2 Pointing out a relevant discussion 3 Inserting {{fact}} tags is vandalism? 4 [citation needed] tags 5 Oesterreicher 6 Respectful Request and Last and Final Warning to Observe WP:CIVIL and WP:GF Thank you 7 Use of source templates 8 Luther Discussion 9 Re: Naked short selling 10 "Unencyclopedic" Comment on Luther Page 11 Acting like two people

Lutheran doctrines of the orders of creation

FYI, [Is attacking the teachings of a fellow editor's church acceptable discourse?]

German Christians used this argument to justify devotion to race and fatherland as "orders of creation" to be obeyed until the final consummation (Woelfel 1970, 240).

Richard Steigmann-Gall: Yes, and I think that’s really the crux. The question is, how could good Christians – good Protestants, running a group like the Inner Mission, devoted to Protestantisation of social policy in Germany – how could such a group advocate sterilisation, and even end up being drawn into the Nazi euthanasia program? And I think it’s very important to keep in mind that these are not people who didn’t realise what they were doing. The theological underpinnings of this, to borrow your expression, also in a broader sense explains why those Protestants who went to Hitler, did go to Hitler. And it’s an expression which is used in Germany – I won’t give you the German word, Stephen, but it translates roughly into “the theology of the orders of creation”. And what you start getting in Protestant circles is the idea – certainly by the turn of the century, this idea is getting currency – that the Volk, or the race, is one of God’s orders of creation. Now, Lutheran theology had always maintained that God had created certain orders in society, like the family, and the law and the state. And what you see increasingly among Luther scholars is the idea being suggested that the Volk as well – and again, Volk is a word which doesn’t translate easily into English, it’s translated as “people” or “race” – but the Volk is a divine order of creation. And here again I have to draw a parallel, Stephen, at least in my context in the United States, with the idea among people like Strom Thurmond in the United States, that miscegenation was something that God was opposed to.

Steigman-Gall: Well, this is the main focus of my book, to explore what the Nazis had to say, and what their conceptions of Christianity were. One thing we have to keep in mind is that the Nazis, because they were a nationalist movement in a country with a long sectarian divide between Catholic and Protestant, the Nazis wanted to appear to be above the confessions, above the denominations. So they came out with an expression, 'Positive Christianity', which theological historians will know is an expression that was used in the 19th century. The Nazis' ‘Positive Christianity’ bears no relationship to that. When the Nazis said ‘Positive Christianity’, they never really defined it very clearly. In fact they kept it rather hazy. And what I discovered was that when the Nazis talked about what they liked about Christianity, time and again they made references to Protestantism. So I can’t tell you in a very explicit way that they said 'well, we like this about Luther, but we dislike that about dialectical theology.' They spoke in broader terms. They were certainly very positive about Luther. They went through the history of religious wars in Germany, they were always very effusive about Luther as the first German and the first Protestant who broke the domination of Rome over Germany, as they saw it. But he also introduced a more personal understanding of God, so the Nazis saw Luther as the person who broke down the necessity of a mediator between the individual and God. So they didn’t make explicit reference to which 19th century theologian they liked or disliked. The leaders they did esteem were recognizably Protestant. And one of those actually is, as frightening as it sounds, a theology which recognized the Volk or the race or the people, as one of the orders ordained by God. Now, this sounds heretical today, the idea that race' is one of God's creations, but one hundred years ago, even before the Nazis, you begin to see varieties of Protestant thought which suggested just that. It is called a Theology of the Orders of Creation. And it was quite current in Lutheran circles both before the Nazis and during the Nazis, too. So in these ways the Nazis made reference to how highly they esteemed Protestantism. Now, I should point out that these were nominally Protestant Nazis who made this connection. Nominally Catholic Nazis, on the other hand, were less inclined to say positive things about Martin Luther. Although there were cases within the Nazi party where even nominal Catholics could make such associations. And perhaps most startling of all is Adolph Hitler himself. Hitler was saying much the same things as the Protestant Nazis were saying: that Luther was a great national hero. Keep in mind that in Germany if you were a good Catholic you weren't going to end up saying such a thing. So I make it clear in the book that I don't consider Hitler a good Catholic - he never went to Mass, he never went to confession. But what he had to say about Christianity behind closed doors was that he too esteemed Protestantism as the 'natural' religion of the Germans. Both a national religion and the natural religion of the Germans.

--Doright 02:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Interesting quotations.--Mantanmoreland 03:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Since this topic is being discussed here I want to make a comment. This version of "Orders of Creation" was never Lutheran, and should not be characterized as such. It is in fact a Nazi distortion of this concept. The Nazis got their idea of the super race from Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, not Martin Luther or any Lutheran. Notice in Stiegman-Gall's quotation that he speaks of "Protestantism": Lutherans make it a point to clarify their views from what is generically non-Roman Catholic in theology. Lutheran Orders of Creation concern God's creation of the structures of society and are completely based on the Bible. They never taught that God created a pure race or that such a pure race should rule the world. Lutherans like Helmut Thielecke joined Karl Barth together in 1933 to repudiate the Nazi version of religion. Please see the Barmen Declaration. To call the Nazi idea "Lutheran doctrine of orders of creation" is a misrepresentation. Thank you,--Drboisclair 15:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no prob with it being discussed here. No harm in that.--Mantanmoreland 17:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Prof Steigman-Gall seems to make an association with Lutherans both prior to and during the Nazi era. Here's some text highlighted from above. I'm not sure what to make of it.

And what you see increasingly among Luther scholars is the idea being suggested that the Volk as well – and again, Volk is a word which doesn’t translate easily into English, it’s translated as “people” or “race” – but the Volk is a divine order of creation.

And one of those actually is, as frightening as it sounds, a theology which recognized the Volk or the race or the people, as one of the orders ordained by God. Now, this sounds heretical today, the idea that race' is one of God's creations, but one hundred years ago, even before the Nazis, you begin to see varieties of Protestant thought which suggested just that. It is called a Theology of the Orders of Creation. And it was quite current in Lutheran circles both before the Nazis and during the Nazis, too.

--Doright 04:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} Steigman-Gall needs to cite specific theologians. This is simply his opinion without support. Without citing proof for this it is highly suspect of being libel.--Drboisclair 05:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

First a statement like that is hardly "libel," and secondly it's made by a distinguished historian. Many far more sweeping statements are made in the Luther articles by far less qualiifed personages.--Mantanmoreland 12:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The book is worth a read. It is scholarly and well-cited. One of Steigmann-Gall's points is that the particular theory of Orders of Creation subscribed to by some (but not all) Nazi leaders and a number of particularly prominent Lutherans who were Nazis emerged in the 19th century and became more virulent as a result of World War I. He posits that these were not mainstream Christian theories, but rather radical viewpoints outside the mainstream, and he does identify the theologians he is discussing. I thought one interesting point made by Steigmann-Gall was that he described "On Jews and Their Lies" essentially as anticipating certain elements of later "racialist" anti-Semitism, implying that he accepts the idea that there is a distinction in kind between the anti-Semitism of Luther and that of the Nazis. Sam 16:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, maybe you could let us know which theologians have such beliefs. This would be helpful in order to track down primary sources.--Drboisclair 16:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The individual who comes off worst is Paul Althaus, with suggestions that a precursor is Karl Holl and that there was a circle of students around Holl as well. He relies in several places on a secondary work by Ericksen, Theologians Under Hitler: Gerhard Kittel, Paul Althaus and Emmanuel Hirsch. I'm at work now, and only have access to the pages I can get from Google Books, I will look for others later. Sam 17:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This is very helpful; however, I don't think that Kittel and Althaus were Nazis. They were persecuted by the Nazis like Bonhoeffer was. Please keep the info flowing. We should probably all get the book to be informed.--Drboisclair 17:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Those were theologians identified as providing a basis for the theories, not the Lutherans who were also Nazis. There, he begins with Erich Koch and Friedrick Kessel and a story about Nazi rhetoric at a Lutheran celebration in Konigsberg. Koch and others are subjects throughout the book. Sam 17:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Should this discussion be moved to the main talk page of the article? Sam 21:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not? I think it's interesting and perhaps wider participation may produce something useful to the article. I'll do it. And, I'll take responsibility for doing it. However, if anyone asks, I'm telling them it was your idea ;) since I have already come under repeated attack by CTSWyneken [here] and [here] and [here] and Drboisclair [here] for even discussing the topic on Mantanmoreland user talk page. --Doright 21:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Pointing out a relevant discussion

You will see on my talk page a question to me from CTSWyneken about your recent changes to Luther and the remarks you placed in the edit summary. My response is on his talk page. I thought you'd be interested. Sam 14:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Inserting {{fact}} tags is vandalism?

Concerning the article John M. Oesterreicher, you reverted edits by Ptmccain with the note rv vandalism. I'm not sure it is proper to dismiss the request of citations as vandalism. Granted, the citation needed links were added by a user who seems quite disenchanted with Wikipedic accuracy however the changes weren't from an anonymous IP address and had nothing to indicate they were vandalism, in my opinion.

I'm not asking you to do anything about the requests for citations, Ptmccain can do that if she/he cares enough to; I'm mentioning that it looks like you regarded Ptmccain's edits as vandalism just so you didn't have to address them. I apologise if I'm touching a nerve. You might want to take more time to refute seemingly harmful edits in a constructive way. Bear also in mind WP:AGF. Anyways, I'm off to get back to my corner of the world. BigNate37 07:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't intend to. The article is sourced, the sources are noted in the article, and the cite tags were added in bad faith. Tags were inserted by that user on various pages identified on my user page as "created" by me, maliciously and in violation of WP:POINT and hence were vandalism. This was done in conjuntion with personal attacks and an anti-Semitic edit summary. The same stunt was pulled on another editor. The user is now blocked. --Mantanmoreland 13:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I obviously didn't know the entire scope of the changes I was commenting on and for that I apologise. My comments were what I gathered from happening upon one article and its edit history. BigNate37 15:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No prob. Actually I got a bit confused myself by RayC's comment!--Mantanmoreland 15:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} tags

Mant., Slim has done a good job of editing the ML and S section in the Luther article. I do not think that she would mind if there is a request for a source. She is good at sourcing, and she expects editors to have their sources right. I disavow your assertion that ^{[citation needed]} tags are a POV pushing device, then user:Doright was using it as such when he peppered the Luther introduction with ^{[citation needed]} tags. I think that he was in his rights to place them there, and they were satisfied. Now if CTS or I wish to ask for citations we should be afforded the same courtesy. Respectfully and civilly, --Drboisclair 20:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Not always but in this instance I thought they were.--Mantanmoreland 22:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Oesterreicher

You'll see in my most recent post i've cited the Oesterreicher article I'd added the link to. I think he'd approve at being used for a bit of interfaith healing, but you know his work better than I. Thanks again for pointing to him on your page. Sam 21:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Respectful Request and Last and Final Warning to Observe WP:CIVIL and WP:GF Thank you

I respectfully ask that you stop posting the kinds of comments you have been making on my user talk page for the past day or so. I respectfully ask you to observe WP:GF and WP:CIVIL. I certainly do apologize to you for any of my past behaviors and posts that have offended you. If you have constructive and specific remarks to offer in response to the proposal, placed on the talk page to discuss please offer those remarks. You may also wish to consider this advice offered on Wiki policy pages [1]:

Before interpreting Sanger's parting advice as permission from the current community of participants to engage in personal attacks, harrassment or stalking after labeling people with whom you disagree; it would be wise to read and understand the policy or guideline regarding personal attacks and the ad hominem fallacy identified by ancient Greek philosophers.

Finally, with all due respect, please be advised that if you persist in posting the kinds of notes that you have recently you will leave me no choice but to implement this bit of advice offered on Wiki's etiquette page [2]: "*Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who if permitted would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here." I'm sure we both can find more constructive uses of our time than this kind of negative exchange and back and forth. I want to work constructively with you, and move on and put the past behind. If you do not feel you are able to do that, then you will leave me with no choice but to delete remarks that do not conform with WP:CIVIL. This is your last and final warning. Thanks for your cooperation.Ptmccain 16:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you take my warnings ([3] and [4]) seriously and not "respond in kind," which can be seen as evidence of bad faith and a refusal to correct your conduct.

Also I see that you are again editing your user page. Removing a response to a retaliatory warning, and covering up that misconduct by a false edit summary, is bad faith conduct. Also I see that you again removed a warning to stop doing that.--Mantanmoreland 17:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Use of source templates

The style guide clearly outlines that sources should be placed at the end of the article. If there are POV problems because of derivation from a POV source - then the {{POV}} tag is appropriate so that such problems will get resolved. Once they are resolved - there is no reason to give that particular source extra visability. --Trödel 17:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thx - you may also want to add your opinion on the TfD discussion about that template. --Trödel 17:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Luther Discussion

Mantanmoreland,

You will note that there has been a significant change in tone and willingness to be cooperative on the Luther page, as well as several attempts to resolve issues. Apologies and proposals to move forward have been extended, and you have dismissed them in such a fashion that new visitors to the page are commenting on it. If you have no interest in discussing this section, please feel free to move on and contribute elsewhere on the page. If you have alternative proposals for reaching consensus, please make them. If you have an interest in participating in the discussion, I would appreciate it if you would attempt to do so with enough specificity and assuming enough good faith so that the discussion can be productive, and listening and taking into account other editor's views as well.

Thank you,

Sam 20:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have noticed that the discussion on the Martin Luther page has become more and more pointless and rambling, and that with your active assistance it has drifted aimlessly and focused on tangential issues raised by the same editors who have dominated this page for years. For years they have obstructed any effort to bring NPOV to this page by throwing up a variety of obstacles, and now you are their strong right arm.

As to tone, in place of personal attacks and POV edits there are now lengthy pointless essays and POV edits. However I don't expect you to realize that, as some of your recent comments indicate you have not read the pages very carefully (such as when you responded to something I didn't say. So please spare me your sanctimonious lectures and stop playing moderator.--Mantanmoreland 21:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Tell you what - you engage in some civil dialogue on substantive issues for a while, and I'll go away. Actually engage directly on issues of your choosing, without the attacks. Spend a couple days trying to work it out - if it doesn't work out, you can go back to the same old when it is done. If you'll do that for the next 48 hours, I'll go away for the next 48 hours. I have no interest in playing moderator, I am an editor like you, but one who wants the incivility to end. If you want a moderator or a mediator, agree to one as you've been offered. Sam 22:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is asking you to either stay nor remain. All I am saying is that you are partisan, so please stop pretending to be a moderator or mediator.--Mantanmoreland 22:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I am pretending to be nothing. My own views happen to be moderate in this crowd; I agree with different warring editors on many things. You can read the discussion above on Steigmann-Gall, however, to see my way of discussing an issue compared to your own. Sam 22:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I try to read comments before responding.--Mantanmoreland 23:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I plan on removing the NPOV notice at the top of the article once the sections that are in dispute are identified. --Trödel 14:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Naked short selling

Thanks for the heads-up; you seem to be handling the situation well so far, and I will definitely step in and issue a block if one is justified. I'll keep a closer eye on the article as well. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

For continuing to add the same external link, the range 66.102.168.0-66.102.168.31 has been blocked for 12 hours. Let me know if the edit-warring continues. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"Unencyclopedic" Comment on Luther Page

Please explain your comment that new additions to the Luther page are "unencyclopedic" with specific reasons and examples of what you are talking about. That would be helpful, rather than vague and imprecise generalizations. Thank you. Ptmccain 23:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Acting like two people

You are welcome to edit with more than one account, but not to act like you are two people. This sort of edit [5] is unacceptable. Fred Bauder 21:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there some kind of policy against posting under multiple identities? I know some Wiki users do this, but isn't there a rule against it? Just wondering.Ptmccain 23:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Having more than one account is not a problem. Using the other accounts as a separate identity is. Fred Bauder 23:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)