journal 8: HITLER WAS A CHRISTIAN.2OF6,1.26.7

Journal 8: HITLER WAS A CHRISTIAN, PART 2 OF 6




1.26.7

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...……………………….


Hitler Was A Christian, Part 2 Of 6


http://www.somareview.com/blogcomment.cfm?datekey=20050808
SOMA: The Society of Mutual Autopsy
A Review of Religion & Culture

August 8, 2005

The Most Famous Christian of the 20th Century?

Timothy E. Kennelly on June 29, 2006 06:20 PM EST writes:
Hitler as a famous ChristianThe argument is quite foolish as the habitual hatred which drove Hitler's agenda as the leader of the Nazi Party and later all of Germany is contrary to Christian teaching. Timothy E. Kennelly
....................................................................................................................................
Editor on April 17, 2006 12:00 AM EST writes:
Bunny, Mike, etc:This article does NOT claim that Hitler was a true Christian or a good Catholic. Are you nuts? It's saying that Hitler USED Christianity and Catholicism to get what he wanted--to bend a nation that identified itself as Christian to his evil will. And he succeeded; he claimed to represent the highest moral and Christian values, and for a while people around the world, not just his own countrymen, believed him. That's what the title means by the "most famous Christian," and it should be clear to anyone who actually bothers to READ the article. The piece also states clearly that, privately, Hitler loathed Christianity. And yet, as it also mentions, Hitler had a bizarre fascination with religion. Still, claiming that Hitler was a true Christian would be as idiotic as claiming that Pol Pot was a good Buddhist.The piece was partly intended as a cautionary tale about leaders who use Christianity and Jesus for political gain.
....................................................................................................................................
Bunny on April 16, 2006 11:16 PM EST writes:
Hitler a Catholic...10th October, 1941, midday: "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." 14th October, 1941, midday: "The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity [is] the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State."13th December, 1941, midnight: "Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more sensel"Hitler was only playing a act of being a Catholic for the people to trust him and crap.This is a load of bull.
....................................................................................................................................
mike on April 11, 2006 11:03 PM EST writes:
hilter - most famous christianIn my humble opinion that is a very absurb statement.Hitler wasn't a Christian--he just used Christianity as an excuse to kill people, there is a distinction. What Hitler has said and done has gone directly against the bible and its teachings.Its only obvious to say that Hilter, if you would like to consider him a christian at all would be the most left wing person ever...
....................................................................................................................................
mark e. anderson on March 3, 2006 10:00 AM EST writes:
On whether Hitler was a ChristianA Christian is a follower of Jesus. A person can call another or himself a Christian without being one. Talk is cheap. It is not the words but the deeds which are important. The New Testament quotes Jesus himself as saying, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven" (Mathew 7:21). He also says in the previous verse, "By their fruits you shall know them."
....................................................................................................................................
Maximus on February 20, 2006 05:51 AM EST writes:
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/Join the revolution for progressive legislation.Browse http://www.boycott-republicans.com_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/Next time you fax, email or call a senator or representative, include this in with your demand: Until the legislation or action I demand gets done I will boycott products from Republican contributors Walmart, Wendy's, Outback Steak House, Dominos Pizza, Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Eckerd, CVS and Walgreens, Curves for women health clubs, GE and Exxon/Mobil. Hold Republican contributors accountable for their officeholders opposition to progress. Then call each company listed above and demand the CEO get the house of representatives to pass your legislative agenda or they will face a boycott.So you say that a boycott will take time or will not work? Nonsense. Idiot conservatives called CBS 3 or 4 years ago in droves to protest the airing of a Reagan movie they did not see but heard that it would not portray Reagan well. They threatened a boycott of CBS and the advertisers. That did not take long to get CBS to shift the movie over to showtime which had a much smaller viewership. Many progressives called Sinclair Broadcasting in droves before the 2004 election threatening a boycott of them and their advertisers if they would not take a movie smearing John Kerry off the air. It worked quickly. If we can get a movie off Sinclair stations then whey can't we call companies in droves that give money to the Republican party and their candidates and Republican senators and representatives and threaten them with a boycott in order to get a comprehensive progressive agenda passed? Why? People must CALL their senators and representative AND these companies in droves making the connection between a boycott of these companies and a demand that they want a progressive agenda passed in congress.Do you want to increase the minimum wage? Write your senators and representative and demand they increase the minimum wage. Browse http://tinyurl.com/bl2fa Do you want to scrap the current meager Medicare Part D discount and replace it with 80 percent medication coverage under Medicare Part B? Write your senators and representative. Browse http://tinyurl.com/7zj69
....................................................................................................................................
Richard Pierard, History Professor on February 14, 2006 04:36 PM EST writes:
Most Famous Christian of hte 20th CenturyI wish you had carefully cited the source of each quotation. Just a name or year of a speech is not enough. As one who has worked on the issue of German Christian acceptance of Hitler, I am aware of the goodly number of apocraphal Hitler quotes floating around. Thus I demand specific locations for statements by and about Hitler which I can check for accuracy and context. Is it possible for you to provide these references for your essay? You have your finger on a real problem, but we scholars have to tread carefully when we warn fellow Christians about the attractiveness this evil person had to Christians.
....................................................................................................................................
Greek Shadow on February 14, 2006 11:07 AM EST writes:
20th century's greatest christianHitler was following the teachings of Martin Heidegger, who leaves Germany comes to the U.S. and is the philosopher behind the rise of the Christian Right movement today. Hitler and GW Bush are the sympthoms -- Heidegger is the cancerous root to the problem.
....................................................................................................................................
Judy on December 19, 2005 07:00 PM EST writes:
Hitler's ChristianityStrange. I had always heard that Hitler called Christianity "Jewish Superstition" and wanted nothing to do with it.
....................................................................................................................................
wesley on November 26, 2005 05:32 AM EST writes:
hitler as christian (re-re-recorrected)humbles apologies--i obviously missed the gist of the final paragraph of your article (i should be asleep and will probably be jeered for being so); consequently, you MAY understand what makes one a "Christian" and apparently realize that in all likelihood adolf hitler was not (judging by his "fruits"). it should be noted however, as we are not God and cannot sift anyone's heart, we cannot know who is and who is not a believer (as in "pistevo" {Greek}).
....................................................................................................................................
wesley on November 26, 2005 05:16 AM EST writes:
hitler as christian (corrected)As amply evidenced by what you've written, you have not even a vague idea of what a Christian is as defined (implicitly) by the Bible. By all appearances and absent an unlikely conversion immediately prior to his death, Adolf Hitler was not someone who was redeemed by the blood of the Christ nor was Christ his Lord. If you bother to notice, the real danger to our "society" is not the persons you derisively refer to as the extreme Christian right or some other such vituperative cliche'. Instead it is the oligarchy that controls not only the US but virtually the entire world. Instead of attacking people bent on being goody-two shoes, why not focus your incisive scrutiny on something like The Federal Reserve, e.g. or perhaps the Bilderbergers; or investigate who decides the price of gold, controls virtually all credit and owns every major insurance and oil company. Maybe then, since you ostensibly enjoy scaring trying to scare people, you can inform them about something truly frightening.
....................................................................................................................................
wesley on November 26, 2005 05:13 AM EST writes:
hitler as christianAs amply evidenced by what you've written, you have not even a vague idea of what a Christian is as defined (implicitly) by the Bible. By all appearances and absent an unlikely conversion imediately prior to his death, Adolf Hitler was not someone who was redeemed by the blood of the Christ nor was Christ his Lord. If you bother to notice, the real danger to our "society" is not the persons you derisively refer to as the extreme Christian right or some other such vituperative cliche'. Instead it is the oligarchy that controls not only the US but virtually the entire world. Instead of attacking people bent on being goody-two shoes, why not focus your incisive scurtiny on something like The Federal Reserve, e.g. or perhaps the Bilderbergers; or investigate who decides the price of gold, controls virtually all credit and owns every major insurance and oil company. Maybe then, since you ostensibly enjoy scaring trying to scare people, you can inform them about something truly frightening.
....................................................................................................................................
Ben R. on November 15, 2005 07:49 PM EST writes:
My thoughts of him changed forever...Wow. I had no idea that Hitler was a Christian. That changes my whole view of him. That is just truly remarkable. I am going to tell all my friends that Hitler was a Christian, and I will tell others that I plan on meeting him in Heaven! Thank you!
....................................................................................................................................
Ben on October 2, 2005 01:06 PM EST writes:
HitlerHitler the biggest Christian? The two biggest commandments in the Holy Bible are to Love God with all your mind and heart, and then to love your fellow man with all your mind and heart. Hitler may have said he was a Christian, but did that really make him one? After all killing Jewish people because he thought his race was superior doesn't seem very Christian to me, and it seems kind of ignorant to call Hitler a person who loves God with all His mind and heart, and loves his fellow man with all his mind and heart...a Christian, it seems ignorant to call him a true Christian. Afterall, if I were to kill somebodies family in the "name" of good will, would it really be in the name of good will?
....................................................................................................................................
Debbie Kean on September 15, 2005 12:24 AM EST writes:
Hitler as a ChristianThere's only one little problem with this article - it's nonsense! Hitler wasn't a Christian )or a Catholic, as both atheists and some angry Protestants like to claim.) Neither was Hitler an atheist - he was a pagan, pure and simple. But - tell a big enough lie, and you think everyone will believe it. It's just sad, IMO, but there are enough gullible people around, especially in the United States...
....................................................................................................................................
Julia on September 14, 2005 12:45 PM EST writes:
Ha! You're a trip, Ron. You bitch slap Richard, then call him a bad Christian for not letting you do it again. Talk about taking the moral high road!
....................................................................................................................................
Ron Mexico on September 13, 2005 09:41 AM EST writes:
You are simply DRIPPING with Christ-like love for your fellow man! I seem to remember something about Jesus saying "Turn the other cheek," but I guess that doesn't match up with your rage-inflected version of the Christian message. I guess "people like me" might get under the skin of biblical figures, but people like you are why thinking people can't take Christianity seriously.
....................................................................................................................................
Father Richard on September 7, 2005 04:56 PM EST writes:
Settle down, "Ron Mexico." There's nothing unministerial about redirect someone's rage in a more appropriate direction. (Though I doubt you took my advice. Fire off any angry letters to James Dobson yet? Didn't think so.)What's more, anger is not unbiblical. In the Scriptures, the prophets get angry, Jesus gets angry, even God gets angry, and I DO mean angry-at things both large and small. In fact, I'm very confident that if anyone would be able to get under the skin of the Bible's biggest names, it would be someone just like you, Ron!Finally, Mister Mexico, I think we've both made our views on Hitler and this article clear. I think you're dead wrong, and I'll leave it at that. I'm done with this discussion. Which is just one more reason you should go after Dobson for all the direct comparisons he makes between things like embryonic stem-cell research and Hitler's mass-murders. I'm sure you'll get right on it, unless of course your holy rage is merely partisan and hypocritical.
....................................................................................................................................
Ron Mexico on September 7, 2005 03:02 PM EST writes:
Ah, "Father" Richard, now there's a true Christian message: I should "direct my rage" at someone. Sorry to disappoint, but you can't divorce Hitler from his crimes, and in fact that's not what this article tries to do. The article compares Hitler's rhetoric to American Christians - and for what purpose? To suggest that American Christians are like Hitler. So what's the purpose of this? The obvious implication is that rhetoric like Hitler's leads to crimes like Hitler's. Why else would the author draw parallels? As an idle exercise in historical curiosity? Give me a break.Julia,I don't think it's insulting to suggest that comparing Pat Robertson to Adolf Hitler trivializes the memory of Hitler's victims. If you do, I'm sorry. But Hitler's victims were not killed by rhetoric, and they were not killed by commonplace political discourse. To suggest that Hitler's crimes are possible in the contemporary USA is to suggest they are somehow commonplace, which is an outrage.
....................................................................................................................................
Fr. Richard on August 31, 2005 12:47 PM EST writes:
Ron Mexico--You're a puzzle. I get the sense you don't really understand these conservative Christians of whom you're so fond, praising (!) them for wanting to go back to the good ol' 1950s. They're the ones who are always making comparisons to Nazi atrocities, which this article DOESN'T do, no matter how much you huff and puff and turn blue in the face. (I agree with Julia. This article is about Hitler's exploitation of Christian rhetoric, not his atrocities.)Take evangelical leader James Dobson. He's said that everything from stem-cell research and abortion to removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube is just like what the Nazi's did in the 1930s, comparing them to Hitler's mass murders and eugenics programs. There was a whole article in the Rocky Mountain News about Dobson's Nazi analogies. It's at: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_3979493,00.htmlRead it, Ron, and direct your rage at Dobson, where it 's far more appropriate!
....................................................................................................................................
Julia M. on August 29, 2005 05:48 PM EST writes:
Ron: I don't see how examining Hitler's exploitation of Christian rhetoric is "insulting to the memory of Hitler's victims." Nor do I see how comparing it with the strikingly similar exploitation of religion today insults his victims, either. It's illuminating to see how Hitler used Christianity to manipulate the public to suit his own ends, evil or otherwise. That is all! And if you, Ron, draw a connection between Hitler's use of religion and the atrocities he later committed, then all the more reason to be concerned about the parallels we see today. Other hand, if you think there's no connection between the way he usurped power and his later atrocities, then who are we disrespecting by examining his use of language? We all agree other factors led to the ultimate evil he unleashed. But no one (except you) is talking about his ultimate evil! I can make that distinction; why you can't you?...For someone so concerned about insulting people, you're awfully full of insults yourself.
....................................................................................................................................
Ron Mexico on August 29, 2005 02:39 PM EST writes:
Good Lord. First, I'm not Washburn, I'm Ron. Second, let's take Pat Robertson's Iowa caucus finish as a means to discuss whether it could happen here:Pat finished second, polling just under 27,000 votes, with about a quarter of the overall vote. So, this means the echo of jackboots are resounding on the national stage? I don't think so.The winner in that contest was Bob Dole, with almost 40 percent of the vote. The party's eventual nominee finished 3rd, with less than 20 percent of the vote.Not only was the Iowa Caucus not a good indicator for American propensity for fascism, it wasn't even a good indicator for the 1988 Republican National Convention!Inhofe and Coburn? We could all cite plenty of senators who were much worse than those two and who are long dead, our country having drifted no closer to being the Fourth Reich.Use your heads, folks. The Nazi comparison is insulting to the memory of Hitler's victims, and to the intelligence of everyone else.
....................................................................................................................................
John McDonagh on August 26, 2005 10:37 AM EST writes:
Actually, they were not "true Christians""Fortunately there were enough true Christians around to keep the essence of Christ’s message alive. Many died resisting the evils of Hitler’s regime, and millions more sacrificed their lives to defeat his armies."Paul Tobin has shown that Paul (who ever met an Earthly Jesus) created the doctrine of salvation based on faith in the resurrection alone that formed Christianity. The people who rejected this innovation were the Nazarenes and Ebionites, who stuck to following the law. Most of the people who rejected the Nazi regime rejected Paul's teachings. Therefore, they were not true Christians. Which is good, since Paul is just a lunatic.
....................................................................................................................................
John McDonagh on August 26, 2005 10:34 AM EST writes:
Ten Commandments; Feb 1940No citation is listed after the Ten Commandments saying. Was it February 1940.
....................................................................................................................................
John D. Spalding on August 16, 2005 10:42 PM EST writes:
A wise and learned friend has been following discussion, and he emailed me a few comments I thought worth posting. He writes: “Some who've commented on this article [e.g. Ron Mexico] take the question, 'Could it happen here?' too literally. Could we empower a leader 'just like' Hitler? Probably not, given the unique historical circumstances that gave rise to him and National Socialism. But could we get someone along those lines? Absolutely. Pat Robertson did pretty well in the Iowa caucus in 1988, if I remember correctly. And think of people like Coburn & Inhofe in the Senate, among others. And, indeed, think of the premise behind 'Justice Sunday II,' which equates disagreement with a position (say, one's view of the due process clause and abortion) with religious bigotry (you're 'anti-Catholic' if you criticize a nominee's position on Roe if that nominee is pro-life by religious conviction and Church teaching).” [Cont.]
....................................................................................................................................
John D. Spalding on August 16, 2005 10:41 PM EST writes:
[Cont.]“Philip Roth's last book, 'The Attack Against America' offers an interesting alternative history of the 1930s & 40s, with Lindbergh becoming president (of the U.S.), and discussions of the German Bunds. Roth's point wasn't that concentration camps would have been duplicated in America, but that basic liberties for certain groups do sometimes lie in a precarious state when the reigns of power are within a demagogue's reach, particularly one who will exploit religion at the drop of a hat.”
....................................................................................................................................
Fuller Ming, Jr. on August 16, 2005 08:46 AM EST writes:
Can It Really Happen Here?Excellent Article – it makes you think!I pray that extremism on the left or the right does not take hold in the US. For example, to be against racial segregation and against two men (or two women) getting married to each other does not constitute religious bigotry. Hitler obviously was way off base. The American pioneering spirit, strong independence our entrepreneurial spirit, coupled with a little bit of human dignity and respect for another’s right to exist to keep in check abase capitalistic greed, should help us avoid an American Hitler. After all, a President only has at best eight years!
....................................................................................................................................
Washburn on August 16, 2005 12:18 AM EST writes:
Well, ok, let me first apologize. I don't mean to be such a scold. (also, I'm a different person from Mr. Mexico, I should note).I really quite appreciated this article, and found it illuminating. The reason I was hungry for more citations is precisely that this *is* an internet article, and thus likely to be found by folks looking to mine it for debates on this subject, which I think is fair to say is a contentious one. Witness the uproar surrounding S. Goldhagen's book on Hitler's Willing Executioners, or the continuing debates on the role of Pope Pius in permitting, or opposing, the Nazi Holocaust. Coming across such a valuable collection of uncited information was a little frustrating to me, I suppose, and produced a churlish response.The questions you raise here are important, and I think the dismissal of comparisons of this type dangerously place facism in the past, as if the seductions of this sort of thinking can now be safely ignored.
....................................................................................................................................
Robert Flynn on August 15, 2005 06:06 PM EST writes:
Washburn might want to look for an English translation of Stefan Moritz's book "Gruess Gott and Heil Hitler" (Hail God and Heil Hitler). Also, the op-ed piece by Geoffrey Stone in today's NYTimes refers to Americans who supported Hitler such as the pro-Nazi German-American bund.
....................................................................................................................................
John D. Spalding on August 15, 2005 05:43 PM EST writes:
“Washburn”: An online article like this doesn't need to cite sources beyond my note that the 12 quotes come from Hitler's speeches (see Domarus' “Hitler: Speeches and Proclamations, 1932-1945”) or “Mein Kampf.” The 7 speeches are dated by month and year. Really need more? E.g., we dated his “stand against secularism” quote April 1933. History 101: That was on the 26th, in a speech during negotiations with the Church that began after Hitler became Chancellor and resulted in the signing of the Vatican Concordat, July 20 of the same year. Or: the “church and state” quote, dated “April 1934.” That was on the 26th, in a speech delivered in Koblenz to the Saar territory, which was separated from Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler wanted to annex the Saar, which was overwhelmingly Catholic; hence Hitler's religious speech. In short, the Vatican urged the Saar to support Hitler; it did. In 1935, the Saar went to Germany.Helpful? Great. But this is an article, not a book. [Cont.]
....................................................................................................................................
John D. Spalding on August 15, 2005 05:41 PM EST writes:
[Cont.] The four “Mein Kampf” quotes are those that are undated. They're from Ralph Mannheim's translation (Houghton Mifflin), and I verified each one. Here are the corresponding pages in the order the quotes appear in the article: p. 65 (the first of two quotes under “God-given mission”); p. 142; p. 268; and p. 357-358.The second to last quote, about the “Ten Commandments” comes from “Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944,” translated by Cameron, Stevens, & Trevor-Roper (Enigma Books) page 85. Finally, “Washburn,” the article is not “contentious.” Shocking, perhaps, to someone unfamiliar with Hitler's rise to power or to the similarities between his religious/political rhetoric and a lot of what we hear today. That's not our problem.Why do I get the feeling “Washburn” is “Ron Mexico”?
....................................................................................................................................
Washburn on August 15, 2005 02:27 PM EST writes:
Cite your sources?In an article like this, wouldn't it not only make sense, but be absolutely necessary to carefully cite your sources?It's not as if your readers can verify and contextualize these remarks by looking up "1934," for example (it's unclear why you bother to provide years, but not sources).Citations, please! And detailed ones! Otherwise, do not presume to speak with any credibility on such contentious issues.
....................................................................................................................................
Ron Mexico on August 12, 2005 10:32 AM EST writes:
Julia:Remember, too, that the 1950s were a time when the standard of living increased to unprecedented levels, when almost 40 percent of workers were organized, when schools and the military were finally desegregated, when ethnic minorities like Irish and Italian Americans were able to leave the urban ghettos behind.The Fifties weren't all good, and weren't all bad. But I don't think the debate in America is over the actual decade itself, but rather two competing idealized versions of it. Again, symbolic language.Personally, I think the war on terrorism has done more to erode our civil liberties than any Christian right initiative, and I think the powerful interests backing both political parties are more selfish and exclusive than any Christian right winger.In this sense, riling liberals and conservatives to fight each other over social issues seems like a brilliant smokescreen.
....................................................................................................................................
Julia M. on August 12, 2005 09:48 AM EST writes:
Ooooh my, Ron. I think Richard got you there! :-) You mentioned Germany in reference to the nation's refusal, along with many other nations, to back the war in Iraq in 2003? I never would have read it that way, good man. Without even touching Ockhams' razor, I took it the way Richard did!...And I wouldn't hold it against you if you did mean it as a reference to Germany in the way the context of your comments suggests. Kind of funny, actually, but then I've been on the other side this discussion. And you've kinda said such comments are intolerable.Also, as one raised conservative xian, I can vouch for your claim, Ron, that cons. xians long for the America of the 50s. But like many critics and scholars, I don't see it as a virtue. The 50s: suffocating conformity; dad wore the pants; mom stayed home and didn't work; gays in the closet; pre-civil rights; McCarthyism; a largely Protestant nation served by largely Protestant leaders. What's not for James Dobson et al to love about that?
....................................................................................................................................
Richard on August 12, 2005 01:01 AM EST writes:
Nah, Ron. You give me too much credit. Out of interest, I just pasted the address into Google and hit return. There it was... This has been one of the more interesting threads I've read online in a while. Good stuff... Over and out.
....................................................................................................................................
Ron Mexico on August 12, 2005 12:25 AM EST writes:
Good sleuthing, Richard, although maybe a little weird. I think my comment at the time was in reference to the current German government, which, as you know, declined to be involved in the Iraq War. I was facetiously expressing my wish to become a citizen of a "more enlightened" country, i.e. Germany. The comment had nothing to do with Germany in the 1930s, but rather the policy of the current government. It is possible to mention Germany without referring to Hitler or Nazism, after all.
....................................................................................................................................
Richard on August 11, 2005 09:06 PM EST writes:
I've much appreciated Ron Mexico's comments here (as I have Julia's and the others). He's added to the conversation. But now I'm puzzled. I searched Ron's email address (gay_as_hell@hotmail.com) to see where else he comments, and I found only one place: http://blogs.salon.com/0001956/2003/04/11.htmlThere, a couple months ago, he criticizes the current admin's war policy: "..You guys are the warringest administration ever! I feel like dancin' in the street, Iraqi-style, I'm so happy (nb. If someone knows how I can become a citizen of another nation--say Germany--please email me at gay_as_hell@hotmail.com"Now, doesn't this sound odd comng from the guy whose whole beef is that "Hitler and his Nazis should be forever banished from political discussion." But isn't his "Germany" reference a way of saying, in effect, I'd rather be in Germany, where we all know WHAT happened, than here in this country with it's "warringest administration ever"? More warring than Nazi Germany?
....................................................................................................................................
Richard on August 11, 2005 06:02 PM EST writes:
I agree with Ron. Most conservative Christians are sincere people, just doing their jobs... But what concerns me, as a Christian, is what conservative Christian political and religious leaders are doing to our country. That's frightening. It's a distortion of true Christianity, and it's being used to control the faithful and exclude all others. Are James Dobson, Tom DeLay and Pat Robetson (Robertson who thinks democracy works only if it's run by conservative Christians) good for the homeless, the sick, the poor, gay people and people of other faiths and other nations, who they either want to save, ignore, or bomb?
....................................................................................................................................
Ron Mexico on August 11, 2005 05:51 PM EST writes:
Julia,Maybe I'm an incurable cynic, but I think all politicians take power by manipulating the public with resonant symbolic language. The purpose of all political language is to deflect attention from the "limited interests" that the politician serves.I don't think Germany in the 1930s provides any kind of parallel. I think the sincere people in the Christian right envision an America similar to the one in the 1950s, which was hardly the Third Reich; I think the insincere people are happy with the way things are right now.If the point of the article was simply to show that politicians lie, and that they often misuse rhetoric for their own ends, that's fine. But I don't think that's particularly shocking to anyone, nor do I think old what's-his-name from Austria has to be invoked to prove the point.
....................................................................................................................................
Julia M. on August 11, 2005 05:46 PM EST writes:
Ron: You must have posted while I was typing. There's my answer!
....................................................................................................................................
Julia M. on August 11, 2005 05:43 PM EST writes:
Ron: Fair enough, let's drop Hitler now. I was ready to earlier; he's heavy and my arms were getting tired. Can we generalize that fascists seize power, for limited interests (mostly theirs and their cronies), by manipulating the masses through language and symbols that resonate with the public on a fudamental level? I completely agree that this article says, hey, we're seeing Christian rhetoric twisted and used by political leaders in a way we've seen before. And if we just focus on German history simply in the early 30s, shouldn't that be enough to concern us, even a little, teeny, tiny bit? Even if we had no idea where it would lead?Hey, this article got us talking about the Christian right today! Sort of. You don't seem to want to discuss them. Should we be conerned about them, forgetting for a moment You-Know-Who?To put it another way, forget the last two sentences of the piece. What do you think of preceding couple thousand words?
....................................................................................................................................
Ron Mexico on August 11, 2005 05:18 PM EST writes:
Julia asked,"How does the religious/politcal rhetoric of the Christian right make you feel, Ron? I'm sincerely curious."Sincerely, I'm not all that worried about it. I used to spend a lot of time demonizing Christians, but as I've gotten older I've become wiser. Most people, even people I disagree with - like the Christian right - are sincere people who believe they're working toward a better society.That I disagree with their goals, or some of their goals, means it's up to me to articulate what I believe and why that's appealing, rather than relying on simply trashing their vision. America's a great country, and not at all like Germany in the 1930s. As long as our disputes are limited to polling places and op-ed pages, I think we'll be fine.
....................................................................................................................................
Ron Mexico on August 11, 2005 05:13 PM EST writes:
Julia,It was a little gruff, but I meant that I don't care whether Christians are offended by this article. Christians certainly don't need me sticking up for them.But read the last two sentences of the piece and tell me the author isn't linking Hitler to today's Christian right (and DeLay, who was mentioned by a previous poster in this forum). "It can happen here," the author writes, meaning an American version of Hitler. The left has been making this claim since the 1930s; as of yet, this American Hitler has not materialized.After he completed his epic film "Shoah," Claude Lanzmann made the extravagant suggestion that no one else should ever make a film about the Holocaust. I have a less extravagant suggestion: Hitler and his Nazis should be forever banished from political discussion. Bad politics might come from good history, but bad history only leads to bad politics.
....................................................................................................................................
Julia M. on August 11, 2005 05:07 PM EST writes:
Ron: You don't care about Christians? That means you don't care about me! That's too bad; I was starting to care about you! Now I'm sad.And you're right. You never mentioned that the article is offensive to Christians. Same time, I didn't notice the article mention Tom DeLay. Are you suggesting he exploits Christian rhetoric for political gain? Say it isn't so! I also don't think this article in any way equates the deeds of the Christian right to the deeds of Hitler, or trivializes Hitler's deeds and victims... I think what that whole period of European history shows us is what horrors humanity is capable of. And if we did it once, we could do it again, and when the powerful vocabularly that enabled it once starts sounding again (even if it doesn't include socialist war rhetoric), I, for one, quake. How does the religious/politcal rhetoric of the Christian right make you feel, Ron? I'm sincerely curious.BTW, we have the same last name, "Mexico." How cool is that? Just kidding.
....................................................................................................................................
Ron Mexico on August 11, 2005 04:38 PM EST writes:
Julia,Where did I say the article was offensive to Christians? I don't care about Christians - the article is troublesome for people who care about the uses and misuses of history.The purpose of the article is not to make a point about Hitler's putative Christianity or about his use of Christian rhetoric - he used socialist class war rhetoric too, why not write a story proclaiming last century's most famous Social Democrat?The story attempts to connect what Hitler did to what politicians in the US are doing today, and this is the problem. There is no comparison between Tom DeLay and Adolf Hitler, and anyone who thinks there is does violence to the memory of Hitler's victims.Whenever someone invokes a Hitler comparison in a political argument, it's a sign they have no ideas, no vision, no prospect of winning the argument. Hitler is sui generis, and to claim otherwise is to trivialize him, and to trivialize his victims.
....................................................................................................................................
Julia M. on August 11, 2005 04:28 PM EST writes:
Ron, Ron, Ron... I'm a Christian, and I can't possibly see how this article is offensive to Christians. Question: Did Hitler or did Hitler not exploit Christian rhetoric to get away with a lot of very un-Christian, evil acts? Is there any lesson we should draw from this? Or should overlook that big chunk of of teh story of Hitler's rise to power?
....................................................................................................................................
Julia M. on August 11, 2005 04:16 PM EST writes:
Mr. Mexico: This piece isn't trying to prove that Hitler WAS a Christian, but that he used Christianity (as so many do) for political gain. His Christian rhetoric was why so many people admired him in the '30s, which you note, though I suspect you understimate how really admired he was, both here and abroad.The piece also points out Hitler's peculiar personal interest in religion and theology--which a person can have, all the while despising Christianity and doing the most un-Christian things in the name of God, no less.Your Henry Ford example--where does that logic from?
....................................................................................................................................
Ron Mexico on August 11, 2005 04:05 PM EST writes:
And another thingEven if historians could conclusively prove that Hitler was either an atheist or a Christian, what would that prove? Hitler was demonstrably a vegetarian and an anti-smoker (Nazi doctors proved the link between tobacco and lung cancer long before Americans did); does that somehow taint vegetarianism or non-smoking?Of course not. But then, the article isn't intended to make a historical point, but to use history to score a contemporary political point (Hitler was a Christian, therefore Christians are like Hitler, therefore our civil liberties are imperiled by Hitler!). While you're reading "dozens" of articles about Hitler, why not steer clear of doubtlessly unbiased sources like "englishatheist.org" and instead read, say, Ian Kershaw's two-volume biography of Hitler?
....................................................................................................................................
Ron Mexico on August 11, 2005 04:00 PM EST writes:
The bulk of the evidence the author gives for the risible claim that Hitler was a Christian are excerpts from Hitler's public utterances. Essentially, we're supposed to take Hitler's word for it. Is Hitler particularly noted for his truth-telling? Hitler also claimed to be a socialist, a peace-lover, and someone not at all interested in occupying the Sudetenland.As for a tiny handful of American Christians admiring Hitler, well, a lot of people admired Hitler in the 1930s. Was Hitler a leading auto manufacturer because Henry Ford admired him? No, and admiration from obscure Baptists doesn't make him a Christian either. Better luck next time.
....................................................................................................................................
Richard on August 11, 2005 03:37 PM EST writes:
I read the Straight Dope piece, and it's clear that Tom is smoking dope. Tom: Big stories get covered by lots of people. (This week all the networks covered the shuttle landing, reporting many of the same facts and quotes. Pretty fishy!) Hitler's religion has been a big story for some 70 years, and there's a ton about it on the Internet.There's another recent article that examines Hitler's religion and asks that so oft asked question, "Could it happen here in America?" which Tom dismissed in SoMA's piece. This other article, written by an evangelical, will make Tom's head spin and probably explode: http://editorials.arrivenet.com/pol/article.php/5262.html
....................................................................................................................................
John D. Spalding on August 11, 2005 02:16 PM EST writes:
Tom: Lifting a Straight Dope article? That's as offensive as it is absurd. I edited this piece and can tell you that the writer submitted it full of footnotes. (SoMA is not an academic journal, so I removed them. Plus, you can find Hitler's quotes, and the two photos I ran, all over the internet.) I personally read dozens of articles about Hitler and religion while working on this piece. Here are just a few, and every one of them includes the same image of the buckle I used:http://liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/HitlersFaith.htmlhttp://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/2002/nov02/carrier.phphttp://englishatheist.org/indexz22.shtmlhttp://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/condition_of_modern_american_soc.htmhttp://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/belt.htmBTW, perhaps the best collection of photos showing Hitler mixing politics and religion (incl. the buckle and Hitler exiting the Marine Church in Wilhelmshaven) is at No Beliefs: http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
....................................................................................................................................
Tom on August 11, 2005 12:08 PM EST writes:
This article managed to show an almost-total ignorance of both German history and contemporary American politics. No, "it can't happen here," and the only people who think it can are hysterical demagogues. Also, why no credit to The Straight Dope for essentially lifting their entire article, complete with the same SS belt buckle photo?
....................................................................................................................................
Jaume on August 10, 2005 06:48 PM EST writes:
Richard, my comment is about facts, not about inner doubts and feelings who are matter for psychologists. Hitler in his time was not a political leader for Christians any more than George Bush is a political leader for Christians today. His militaristic leanings were at odds with Christianity, but power is always fascinating for religious leaders, and most German religious leaders of all religions (Odinists included) supported him, sometimes for their own lives's sake. And no, Stalin was a not closet Christian, but he had a religious vocation during childhood and was revered like a god in life, so in a sense he fulfilled his early inclinations.
....................................................................................................................................
Richard on August 10, 2005 09:17 AM EST writes:
Jaume: I think you missed the point. Namely that, as the fourth paragraph points out, long before Hitler was considered infamous he'd made himself world famous as a Christian leader carrying out God's plan. In which case he wasn't famous then as a mass-murderer. (BTW: "famous" first and foremost means "widely known" and has "notorious" as a syn.) Another point of the piece is that Hitler exploited Christianity (in a way that brings to mind Christian right politicians like T. DeLay) while privately hating it. Did Stalin privately hate atheism? Was he a closest Christian?
....................................................................................................................................
Jaume on August 10, 2005 06:20 AM EST writes:
Being a mass murderer makes you "famous"? I could think of better words to describe that kind of guy. Anyway, I guess that makes Stalin "the most famous Atheist of the 20th century".
....................................................................................................................................
joe in oklahoma on August 9, 2005 10:23 PM EST writes:
great commentary...one note however,Gott Mit Uns was on the beltbuckles of all german soldiers, for many years. not a nazi innovation.
....................................................................................................................................
Anonymous on August 9, 2005 09:47 PM EST writes:
Thus we see another demonstration of the power of quotes out of context. The entire premise is ridiculous.
....................................................................................................................................
Josh Narins on August 9, 2005 08:26 PM EST writes:
Against All Religions, HereAlthough I appreciate a collection of the proganda of Hitler, especially as it relates to christianity, there is serious scholarship available on his more occult beliefs.Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke's bio[1] and a review of his book[2] on the subject, The Occult Roots of Nazism (1985).[1] - http://www.lamp.ac.uk/trs/Staff/goodrick_clarke.htm[2] - http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/11/1/Grimstad121-127.htmlYou think those links are weird? What if started numbering them at zero!
....................................................................................................................................
Julia M. on August 9, 2005 05:45 PM EST writes:
How easily we forget all this stuff. When Hitler escaped an assassination attempt in Munich in 1939, he credited God: "The fact that I left the Burgerbraukeller earlier than usual is a corroboration of Providence's intention to let me reach my goal." Catholic papers repeated this, declaring that a miracle of God had protected their Fuhrer. Cardinals Faulhaber and Bertram had a Te Deum sung in the Munich cathedral, "to thank Divine Providence in the name of the archdiocese for the Fuhrer's fortunate escape." Even the pope echoed this in his congratulations to Hitler. This, the same pope who called Hitler's beef with Russia "highminded gallantry in defense of the foundations of Christian culture."More: http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/back/hitler.html
....................................................................................................................................
Robert Flynn on August 9, 2005 04:15 PM EST writes:
....................................................................................................................................
Jeremy on August 9, 2005 02:29 PM EST writes:
HitlerGimme a break, next you're gonna tell me that Tom DeLay is a Christian.
....................................................................................................................................
Silentio on August 9, 2005 02:19 PM EST writes:
As they say... in politics and high finance duplicity is a virtue.
....................................................................................................................................
Father Richard on August 9, 2005 01:41 PM EST writes:
Cracking jokes about Hitler can be tricky, but SoMA really pulls it off with that photo of Hitler stepping out of a church and the caption in which he complains about having to say 20 million Hail Maries and 40 million Our Fathers. Heh-heh-heh.Great article...
....................................................................................................................................
Eugene McKinney on August 9, 2005 11:15 AM EST writes:
The Use of Church by the StateA brilliant presentation. History does indeed repeat itself.
………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………………………………………..…………