Comparisons with hate rhetoric of religious right and Nazi Germany toward Jews

[ladyinred]

http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hitler/hitler.html Similarities on the rhetoric of Nazi Germany toward Jewish people and the hate rhetoric of the religious right toward gay people:(

[RainbowL'elly]

i've been contemplating this myself lately- i've been wondering what the difference between hitler and fred phelps is, other than the amount of political power they have...the rhetoric between these two is nearly identical, though the ability they have to have people act on it is what greatly differes, thanks to how little power phelps has.

[andrewlittle]

... but also homosexuals and intellectuals. The numbers were lower, simply because of demographics and to some extent the ability to hids, but homosexuals were also on the top of Hitler's hate and violence propaganda.

RainbowL'elly said:
i've been contemplating this myself lately- i've been wondering what the difference between hitler and fred phelps is, other than the amount of political power they have...the rhetoric between these two is nearly identical, though the ability they have to have people act on it is what greatly differes, thanks to how little power phelps has.

If you add to Fred Phelps others like Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, etc, the political clout seems to be extensive. Then when you consider the processes of evangelizing the senate, house and pentagon, which is ongoing, power begins to accumulate.

Then, if you think that Bush "stole" and election, entertains "dominion" theology, started a "just" war against "an evil empire", and very effectively uses the same kind of soundbyte rhetoric and propaganda, this kind of power doesn't seem like too distant a possibility - does it?

[novaseeker]

To me it's a "yes and no" situation.

Yes, there are clearly comparisons that can be made, particularly given the Nazis' persecution of homosexuals. I think it's very important to remember historical events so that we can maintain a certain degree of awareness and vigilance to help try to avoid similar events being repeated.

But, ultimately, in my own experience using Nazi comparisons liberally really makes people change the channel fast in terms of dialogue, because people are prone to say "hey, even though I don't agree with Fred Phelps, I kind of am queasy about [GLBT] people as well, are you calling me a fascist?!?", and the opportunity for dialogue therafter is greatly diminished. Also, people are tired of seeing the word "fascist" thrown around, and it's likely that raising direct comparisons will alienate more than educate the average reader who has not already drawn the same comparative conclusion herself.

I think it's better to attack these folks on their own terms, perhaps throwing in a historical analogy or two along the way, but focusing mostly on their own statements and attitudes juxtaposed against the backdrop of a society that has its basis in human freedom. I think it's a more positive message and less alienating to people generally and has a better chance of finding at least some common ground.

[RainbowL'elly]

i dont think we should call these people nazis to their face or use that in the attempt to construct a dialogue, it's the comparison that strikes me- then again, people have been manipulating each other this way for centuries.

i agree that the potential for political power in this country to be used against us is huge, but i have hopes that the dems in congress will have the ability to temper it, to some degree.

i think that it is more useful to draw comparisons to the plight of other oppressed groups and their fight for equality when constructing a dialogue.

... but also homosexuals and intellectuals. The numbers were lower, simply because of demographics and to some extent the ability to hids, but homosexuals were also on the top of Hitler's hate and violence propaganda.


aye, there were quite a few people who were gender-'deviants' who were thrown in the camps- that's the origin of our black and pink triangle symbols.