And here comes our fellow-Christian - Adolf Hitler.
Offline I have compiled a few citations from Hitler's speeches (from here http://www.hitler.org/speeches/) for myself to have some readily available tools to demonstrate how Christianity can be used to justify fascism, and to confirm that St. Adolf was a Christian and not an atheist as some Christians may still believe.
Munich -- Speech of April 12, 1922
"I SAY: MY FEELING AS A CHRISTIAN POINTS ME TO MY LORD AND
SAVIOUR AS A FIGHTER. IT POINTS ME TO THE MAN WHO
ONCE IN LONELINESS, SURROUNDED ONLY BY A FEW FOLLOWERS, RECOGNIZED THESE
JEWS FOR WHAT THEY WERE AND SUMMONED MEN TO THE FIGHT AGAINST THEM AND WHO,
GOD'S TRUTH! WAS GREATEST NOT AS SUFFERER BUT AS FIGHTER. In boundless love
as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how
the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of
the Temple the brood of vipers and of adders. How terrific was His fight
for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years,
with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before - the fact
that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian
I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a
fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it
that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did
the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago - a
civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people."
Munich -- Speech of August 1, 1923
"When the whole German people knows one will and one will only - to be free -
in that hour we shall have the instrument with which to win our freedom. It matters
ot whether these weapons of ours are humane: if they gain us our freedom, they
are justified before our conscience and before our God."
Munich -- Speech of September 12, 1923
"The Republic, by God! is worthy of its fathers."
Berlin: Proclamation To The German Nation -- February 1, 1933
"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to
revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve
and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It
regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the
family as the basis of national life...."
"Now, people of Germany, give us four years and then pass judgment upon us.
In accordance with Field Marshal von Hindenburg's command we shall begin
now. May God Almighty give our work His blessing, strengthen our purpose,
and endow us with wisdom and the trust of our people, for we are fighting
not for ourselves but for Germany."
Berlin, Reichstag -- Speech of March 23, 1933
"In the same way, the Government of the Reich, which regards Christianity as
the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attaches
the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See, and is
endeavoring to develop them."
Weimar -- Speech of November 6, 1938
"...we National Socialists have resolutely championed belief in our own people,
starting from that watchword of eternal validity: God helps only those who are
prepared and determined to help themselves."
Berlin, Reichstag -- Speech of October 6, 1939
"As Fuehrer of the German people and Chancellor of the Reich, I can thank God
at this moment that he has so wonderfully blessed us in our hard struggle for
what is our right, and beg Him that we and all other nations may find the right
way, so that not only the German people but all Europe may once more be
granted the blessing of peace."
Berlin: Hitler's Order Of The Day -- April 6, 1941
"We pray to God that He may lead our soldiers on the path and bless them as hitherto."
- Login to post comments
Any conversation regarding theism vs atheism, the theist will undoubtecly say, "AHA!!!!!!!! Stalin was an atheist and killed way more people than the Inquisition!" Even if Hitler was an atheist for the sake of argument, it is a non-sequitur that atheism leads to genocide. How many times do we have to repeat this mantra "ATHEISM IS NOT AN IDEOLOGY!!!!!!"
What the Dinesh D'Souzas don't undestand is that crimes against humanity are the result of tribalism in the absence of a liberal democracy based on the rule of law. It is repeatedly touted that western democracy has Judeo-Christian underpinnings (which is not altogether true but I'll save that argument for a different time). Thus they claim that Christianity results in a moral and just society. But modern day Rwanda has Judeo-Christian underpinnings since the 1880s when the Catholic missionaries "enlightened" the Hutus and Tutsis. Dinesh and his fellow theist twits quickly ignore the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Christianity was simply incorporated into the pre-colonial tribal hatreds. It is utterly false that the religious are morally superior.
Anytime there is an Us and Them separated by a rigid ideological fence, relgion usually fortifies rather than demolishes that fence. And mind you, if Big Brother was replaced in name by Jesus, INGSOC would be canonized by the Roman Catholic church. So theist, shove that in your pipe and smoke it!!!!
Hitler may have been a Christian and Stalin an atheist, and Mao may have been and atheist too, but indicting religion or atheism for people like this is a genetic fallacy.
Likewise, it seems that in a forum such as this, inevitably Hitler or the Third Reich will be invoked for one reason or another. One could well say, "Hitler was a man, therefore all men are evil" or something like that. To me, it's just as absurd. If one objects as I have, one then gets blamed for sympathizing with fascism. Freeminer tried to pull that one on me...
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
I would say this, and it will probably get me in trouble on this forum, but atheists have killed and/or persecuted people because they were theist or of some religious affiliation. Theists will pursue this, saying that these actions were in the "name of atheism" (albiet atheism isn't an indeology) because the beliefs held by the victims were religious in nature and claim that it is no better to persecute people because they have a particular ideology than it is to persecute people because of a particular ideology.
But I think it is just as foolish to indict all atheists on this. The arguments on both sides, as I said before, are genetic fallacies. Sam Harris' and others reply to this is that he says the respective ideologies of the perpetrators is more like a religion in the form of a cult or personality. I think all this shows is that religion is not inherently evil anymore than any other ideology. Those on a crusade to stamp out religion because it perpetrates evil should, I think, be on a crusade to stamp out ideologies that persecute people just because these people disagree with the perpetrator of ideologies.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
Stalin suppressed the church not because of their beliefs, but because the church would not supported Communism, and the church was a powerful institution that could have done the Communists a great deal of harm. There can be little doubt that the money and the lands which the church held in great amounts had something to do with it as well. The beliefs of the church and it's people were insignificant.
This is what I'm getting at. I'd be willing to bet there's perhaps some other motivation perhaps, other than "God told me to do it", behind a lot of things that are are seemingly done "in the name of religion".
I might also ask, if the church is not ideologically opposed to Communism, (more specifically, Stalinism) how could the church being a "powerful institution" do "Communists a great deal of harm"? It seems to me, there must be something about the content of the beliefs of the church, political or religious, that oppose Stalinism and would prompt the Stalinists to quell religion. In other words, I'm asking why didn't the church support Communism?
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
And listing Mao along side Stalin and particularly Hitler is quite a fallacy too.
Stalin *may* have been trying to starve those people- although it is possible that he may have been legitimately paranoid/schizophrenic and really believed those people were hoarding food, I don't know that he was ever very sentimental about the result though- Mao was P.O.d when he found out about what was happening (which happened due to his policies' unwitting result of rewarding local officials for lying and reporting higher crop yield and then the central government taking the appropriate amount based on those inflated numbers- which would have been fine had the numbers not been inflated) and took appropriate measures (okay, maybe overkill) and had those lying public officials executed.
Hitler is in a league of his own, though- what he did was religious/psychotic malice towards Jews.
One must measure the character of these men and their ideologies by intent- not merely by the results. No ideology, but foolish policies, killed many people in China, and that was never the intent as it *may* have been in Russia (Still debatable, and at worst it had more to do with paranoia and apathy) and certainly was for the Nazis (not even debatable- profound malice and intent).
I'm not saying it's not a fallacy to indict a religion based on the actions of a few, but be careful what you compare; it makes no contextual sense to associate the starvation in China with an ideology of any kind- even with communism or collective farming practices, none of which it had to do with. That tragedy came from poor methodology.
This is where the believer pulls two back peddles.
Hitler was just using religion. Or, he wasn't a "true Christian".
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Yes... But you have to admit those Nazi's were snappy dressers...
www.RichWoodsBlog.com
I'd agree if I was indicting Mao because he was like Hitler and Stalin, as that would be the point I was making. But I think each leader had his own set of ideologies that for better or worse had consequences to bear. I wasn't comparing Mao to Stalin or Hitler, rather making reference to Mao, particularly the Cultural Revolution.
The Mao reference was not to failed farming practices but rather the methodical efforts to stamp out religion, one of the planks in his effort to stamp out the "4 Olds". Two of the campaign slogans were “beating down foreign religion” and “beating down Jesus following”. I read the book, Jesus in Beijing and the author postulates that the rapid expansion of Christianity in China now was because the failure of Maoism created an ideological vacuum in his successful effort to quell religion. The Chinese government has since liberated to one degree or another different aspects of life from farming to business to religion, but the ideological vacuum is being filled by other things, religion being one of them.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
As many times as it takes for you to believe it, apparently.
Just because you repeat it doesn't make it true.
Back at you.
Just because you repeat the claim atheism is an ideology, worldview, or a religion doesn't make it true.
I think it's at this point you claim divine imprimatur for your claim.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
JMM... Perhaps you should try the "I Know you are but What am I?" strategy... and if that fails, there is always the "I'm Rubber and you're Glue" bomb to drop... But I would only use the latter as a last resort
www.RichWoodsBlog.com
Let's imagine a fictional society wherein no one believes in astrology. There are 2 factions. Group A believes that the best way to break an egg is to crack the narrow end. The minority group B believes that the best way is to crack the wide end. Genocide has been committed by group A and scores of group B citizens have been killed over this egg cracking ideology. Using your logic, non-astrology was the cause for genocide. And therefore, those who believe in astrology are morally superior to those who don't.
How many times do we have to repeat this mantra "NON-ASTROLOGY IS NOT AN IDEOLOGY!!!!!!"
And their trains ran on time. Well, for a while any way. Whenever someone promises you the world, check your back pocket.
It doesn't take much to create lemmings, all it takes is the promise of a utopia. Hitler's chosen people is no different than Allah's chosen people are Stalin's chosen people.
What is sad and laughable at the same time is that Christians in the west don't see how important the Age of Enlightenment was to protect pluralism.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
So why does repeating, "I have a friend who has no known location, or provable location, who has super powers, who happens to like the fact that I blindly support him"
And you have had this proposition proven? How?
The same way that Muslims prove that their god exists? Merely by shouting as loud as you can and shouting that lots of people believe it?
I will see you on Church on Sunday. I forgot that you were the master and I was the Grasshopper.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Actually, I would agree. Let's take, for example, the crusades - any of them. I would not doubt for a moment that the church's main motivation for engaging in these attacks on the "Holy" land was money and power, and not ideology. That still doesn't change the fact that the church and the governments involved used ideology to gain support from the mass of people required to stage such a major endeavor. Atheists today know that it is religion that enables the wrongs of the world, even still. That is the problem.
Nobody cares if you believe in Jesus, or Muhammed, or anything else except to the extent that those beliefs color your political behavior and therefore, our rights.
Communism is an economic model, not a theological one. Even still, preaching to the populus against the government? How is that not damaging?
Could it be because the communists were atheistic? Without a theological worldview, how is the church supposed to control the population? From where would the church gain it's vast stores of material wealth and power? It can be questioned whether the "church" at it's highest levels really believes in any of the theological arguments it puts forth.
So what happens when we get rid of religion and they replace religion with something else as an enabler?
I think you and I would agree then that indicting religion because of evil committed by a few is a genetic fallacy, and even more so,the motivation may not even be religious in nature after all.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
How is atheism an ideology then?
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
I think that motivation is almost always a non-religious one. But religion is often used as a tool of reaching certain goals and as a justification of actions. For example, alcohol can hardly be a motivation in a murder [except some really weird circumstances
], but it can be a tool to get high and aggressive enough for killing, and it can justify a murder (I don't really remember how it happened, I was drunk). So drinking while driving and while at work are normally prohibited as well as selling alcohol to underaged persons. Why not religion?
Dunno...It's a slippery slope, I think. 21 is an arbitrary age...nothing magical happens on one's 21st birthday that makes them any more responsible than they were the day before or will be the day after. That, and I don't think alcohol is inherently evil either. But banning drinking and driving is not arbitrary, in that I've never known a case where drinking and driving was beneficial. But as a rule, do we ban alcohol because a few make a stupid choice? I suppose religion is somewhat of the same case...there are nut-jobs, then there are people who have an otherwise peaceful existence. Do we punish these because of the nut-jobs?
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
As multiple folk have pointed out there seems no connection between moral behaviour and religious observance. That list of dictators and their dreadful wrongs proves nothing either way. Why not go a step further and consider World War One. No dictators involved - high sense of piety all round. Death toll: 20,000,000. Humans are capable of screwing up even when they mean not to. Most wars progress through various stages of sunk cost fallacy until one more death is unsupportable.
I have wondered in the past whether or not the term 'real christian' was a merely synonym for 'good person'. I know some godly folk that my fundy background describes to me as real christians and they are people of the highest quality. Their motivations might be different from those of unbelieving good people but the end result of their beliefs in terms of behaviour is very similar. Their moral condescension can be galling, I admit.
Some might disagree with me but I think the atheist's/theist's instinctive assessment of another person's social and personal goodness is identical. When you meet some one who has the right stuff you very quickly know it. Religion is simply window dressing.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck