QUOTE (Redjack @ Mar 5 2008, 01:30 PM)

I'd like to play devil's advocate to this one.
Love you to do so.
QUOTE
- In Nazi Germany, a significant percentage of the children in the population were convinced to make the state their primary allegiance; To the point where they were turning in their own parents, some of whom were executed.
Hmm... The totalitarian nature of the Nazi party was one of its principal tenets. The Nazis contended that all the great achievements in the past of the German nation and its people were associated with the ideals of National Socialism, even before the ideology officially existed. Propaganda accredited the consolidation of Nazi ideals and successes of the regime to the regime's Führer ("Leader"), Adolf Hitler, who was portrayed as the genius behind the Nazi party's success and Germany's saviour.
To secure their ability to create a totalitarian state, the Nazi party's paramilitary force, the Sturmabteilung (SA) or "Storm Unit" used acts of violence against leftists, democrats, Jews, and other opposition or minority groups. The SA's violence created a climate of fear in cities, with people anxious over punishment, or even death, if they displayed opposition to the Nazis. The SA also helped attract large numbers of alienated and unemployed youth to the party.
Vctims of Nazi persecution in addition to those Jewish and Roma between 1939-1945 included communists, various political opponents, social outcasts, homosexuals, religious dissidents such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, the Confessing Church and Freemasons.
The Church in Nazi Germany was subjected to as much pressure as any other organisation in Germany. Any perceived threat to Hitler could not be tolerated - and the churches of Germany potentially presented the Nazis with numerous threats.
In 1933, the Catholic Church had viewed the Nazis as a barrier to the spread of communism from Russia. In this year, Hitler and the Catholic Church signed an agreement that he would not interfere with the Catholic Church while the Church would not comment on politics. However, this only lasted until 1937, when Hitler started a concerted attack on the Catholic Church arresting priests etc. In 1937, the pope, Pius XI, issued his "Mit brennender Sorge" statement ("With burning anxiety") over what was going on in Germany. However, there was never a total clampdown on the Catholic Church in Germany. It was a world-wide movement with much international support.
Pope Pius XI condemned the Nuremberg Laws in July, 1938, and was preparing an encyclical against anti-Semitism, but died in 1939 before it could be completed. His successor, Pius XII decided not to speak out against the atrocities being carried out in Germany.
The Protestant Church was really a collection of a number of churches - hence they were easier to deal with. The Protestants themselves were split. The "German Christians" were lead by Ludwig Muller who believed that any member of the church who had Jewish ancestry should be sacked from the church. Muller supported Hitler and in 1933 he was given the title of "Reich Bishop".
In 1936, the Reich Church was created. This did not have the Christian cross as its symbol but the swastika. The Bible was replaced by "Mein Kampf" which was placed on the altar. By it was a sword. Only invited Nazis were allowed to give sermons in a Reich Church.
In 1941 August von Galen, the Archbishop of Munster, spoke out in a sermon against the Nazi practice of euthanasia (the killing of those considered by the Nazis as genetically unsuitable). Adolf Hitler wanted Galen arrested but Joseph Goebbels warned against this as Galen was a popular religious leader. It is claimed that Galen's sermon inspired the formation of the anti-Nazi White Rose group.
After the war there was a general re-essurgance in christianity and a unification of protestant churches as well. During this period of time we could argue that religion was not attacked openly but was suppressed and subordinated by the Third Reich's power apparatus for maintaining the personality cult around Adolf Hitler.
QUOTE
- With the foundation of the Republic of Turkey, Islamic Canon Law was deposed, the Ottoman Turkish alphabet was replaced with the new Turkish alphabet derived from the Latin alphabet, the dress law (the wearing of a fez, a traditional Muslim hat) was outlawed, laws regarding family names were enacted, etc.
There are more examples of radical change on a country in a single generation. I think we need to look harder at history to realize how quickly society can and does change.
The precursors for the secular reforms can be found in the measures and proposals of the Ottoman Empire (Tanzimat, first constitutional and second constitutional era). The Ottomans' failure to embrace the Arab populace was one source of political tension. It was said the reforms, "alienated a segment of its society," and as "the state's hostility to religion became clear,… Islam thus became a political tool in the hands of Arab populace." (see Countercoup (1909)) This factored in the Arab Revolt. Atatürk's reforms thus aimed to escape from the old mistake. Rather than having an Islam emerging solely from opposition to the Kemalist state, have a Kemalist socialization imbibed by a more pluralistic Islam. The changes toward secularism did not happen overnight in the framework of the new republic. It had a narrative originating from the Ottoman Empire's political experience, a narrative which continues during the 21st century, with a Turkish Islam rooted in Sufism, particularly Naqshbandi Sufi orders, and punctuated by frontier conditions of Turkey. Whether the results were "pluralistic" and "liberal" by chance or by plan is debated.
The changes included abolition of the office of caliphate held by the Ottomans since 1517, achieved on March 3, 1924, which followed the abolition of the religious education system and the introduction of a national education system on March 3, 1924. Closure of the Islamic courts and the abolition of Islamic canon law gave way to transfer to a secular law structure by adoption from the Swiss Civil Code and other laws.
Atatürk's reforms were not anti-Islamic. Reforms included the establishment of Directorate for Religious Affairs (Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı), with the duty of "to execute the works concerning the beliefs, worship, and ethics of Islam, enlighten the public about their religion, and administer the sacred worshipping places." Reforms visualized a state which stood at equal distance ("active neutrality" rather than "passive neutrality") from every religion, neither promoting nor condemning any set of religious beliefs. Directorate for Religious Affairs become responsible for selection of appropriate policies through careful analysis and evaluation.
During single party period of time, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in the early years of the Turkish Republic set in motion numerous changes to the political landscape of Turkey, the revolution of which lasted until the multiparty era of the 1950s. The graduates of the Tanzimat-era modern schools, who formed the nation's elites including Atatürk and the members of Republican People's Party, applied their western-inspired modernization to all areas of government. Central to these reforms were the belief that Turkish society would have to Westernize itself both politically and culturally in order to modernize.
Both examples, Germany and Turkey, were during a time when nationhood of both countries were relatively young. That of shifting from a monarchic insitution base to that of a democratic one took a long period of time. It was not until the 1950's to the 1960s that we can talk about multirepresentational parties in place, and secular education having replaced religious education. The understanding and concept of the division of church and state only enters the cultural pathos during this period of time, as those intially who have gone through secular education have become adults. In some countries such as Frace, Italy, and Spain the division of Church and State has not fully seperated where each live next to each other in comfortable or uncomfortable companionship.
Now if we were to talk about comparisons Italy and Spain might be more interesting or then the current changes undergoing in Venezuela and its political neighbours. But what does that have to do with the price of land in Texas we won't know

.
Notes to others: WHILE AN INTERESTING SUBJECT ON ITS OWN, WE WILL MOST LIKELY CONTINUE THIS CONVERSATION IN PRIVATE IF WARRANTED. DO NOT TAKE THIS AS AN EXCUSE TO START ARGUING POLITICS AND/OR RELIGION. Thank you.