The sacralisation of the Holocaust and consequent "blasphemy laws" have been pushed in the public discourse not only in Germany but throughout Europe. Germany happens for obvious reasons to be the country most receptive to it. Sincerely, a European.
If we cannot agree that nobody should chant Nazi songs ever again, we have a very different set of values. This has nothing to do with blasphemy, but respect for the millions senselessly killed not even a hundred years ago. Look around you: People are rediscovering fascism and nationalism as seducingly simple answers to complex questions. There's a reason we spent decades to think about ways to prevent this from happening again.
> If we cannot agree that nobody should chant Nazi songs ever again
This is a strawman, we agree on this and this discussion is about someone being investigated in Germany for using Hitler's picture to attack and criticise another dictator. (Though to be true, I am more concerned about people acting as nazis, whatever songs from whatever country they might be chanting).
> People are rediscovering fascism and nationalism as seducingly simple answers to complex questions
I agree, but I think that this is, also, the result of turning the memory of the past in a set of empty rituals that are used to secure the exact opposite of their stated goal: continued support for the oppressors of today and open, shameless contempt for their victims.
I'm not sure we are, given that this specific thread is about some people claiming Holocaust remembrance (and German limits to free speech when it comes to that topic) is akin to a religion, which doubts it at best and mocks it at worst.
> someone being investigated in Germany for using Hitler's picture to attack and criticise another dictator.
That is not what happened though. The Swastika is a prohibited symbol in Germany for a reason. Also, this investigation is pretty much guaranteed to be dropped because it's obvious to any sane person that Mr. Zitelmann did nothing wrong.
But using this incident to drag down any and all nuance around the German way of remembering the Holocaust isn't appropriate either.
It is being taught mandatory in schools a certain way with visits to museums and other historical sites that are being displayed and acted out like a theatrical play all payed by taxes, it is illegal to talk about it any other way, there are annual ceremonies and other events with political leaders paying there tribute.
tell me how that is different from any other religion with customs in staunch religious countries.
Germany has seen one of the most atrocious crimes we know of; an industrialised genocide facilitated by the state, enabled by a whole society.
Everything you try to frame as some perversion of a religion here is an attempt of ensuring the memory of this is being kept alive, even after those responsible and their victims are gone. There is nothing to believe here, because in contrast to religions, this is about preservation of the actual past. It’s provable.
>because in contrast to religions, this is about preservation of the actual past
That is exactly the whole reason for the existence of religion. Passing down history, stories, events, social norms and opinions. I guess this kind of fanatical knee-jerk reaction is to be expected on here.
This is such a ridiculous contrarian take. Religion is rooted in faith, not empirical evidence. It makes metaphysical claims, whereas there are still a few living witnesses of the Third Reich; it answers existential questions, while Holocaust remembrance aims to prevent recurrence.
I do agree that there's a certain amount of ritualism around it, but that doesn't even remotely equate to a religion. Suggesting so also implies whether the Holocaust actually happened is up for debate, or merely indoctrination. Refuting this isn't a knee-jerk reaction, it's annoyance over a shallow dismissal by an edgy arm-chair expert.
