Of Mosques and Nazis

[rredwards]

With the national public debate against Muslims being allowed to build a Mosque in NYC, I think someone on the national stage should should help clear up a long standing misunderstanding in the west. That is, building a Mosque near ground zero has been compared to the Nazis building a shrine near the sites of former Jewish death camps, by "credible" national figures, and no one has stood up to their incredulity.

Unfortunately, the Nazis do to this day, have shrines built near every former Jewish death camp because the Nazis were Christians and their shrines are Churches. There is no possible debate that the Nazis were Christians, just a state of ignorance about that fact or denial of the truth by the Christian controlled media and education system in the west.

The very charter of the Nazi Party, referred to as the 25-point Program, stipulates clearly that the Nazi movement advocates Christianity and that its members may never offend Christian values.

The name "3rd Reich" refers specifically to only the Christian Kingdoms (Reichs) from German history and excludes German kingdoms that were not "ordained by Christ". For example if the germanic King Alaric I and his kingdom were considered, the Nazis would have established the 4th Reich. Alaric however, is not counted because his reign was before the Germans converted to Christianity.

Hitler himself outlawed non-secular schools and required all children to attend Christian schools. Hitler also established a treaty with Pope Pius XII which is still in effect today and protects Catholic Priests from legal action when they are caught molesting children in Germany.

Additionally, while the Nazis where well known for their organized program to pull silver and gold fillings from the very teeth of their victims, they neglected to plunder the vast treasure of gold that blatantly adorns the very walls of the Vatican. Who else but a Christan would hold Vatican gold sacrosanct?

Finally, it was Christian "Passion Plays" in the vein of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" that Nazis used to create such fervent anti-jewish sentiment and drive Nazi party enrollment. The Nazi party and Nazi government even created travel packages and supplemented discounts for families that went to see approved "Passion Plays". How is western civilization is such stark denial that Nazis were and are still today Christians?

 

[Giliell]

Hitler also established a treaty with Pope Pius XII which is still in effect today and protects Catholic Priests from legal action when they are caught molesting children in Germany.

Yes and no
Yep, that's the stupid Reichskonkordat and it's still in place today and it's a pain in the ass because it blatently violates freedom of religion and makes catholicism in Germany a matter of international law which is above our national laws and constitution.

But it has nothing to do with priests molesting children not being prosecuted. They are fully and legally responsible for their actions.

As for the comparison: It would be correct if Al Quaida wanted to errect a monument for their fallen heroes there.

Would I be happier if mosques weren't built anymore? Course I would. But as long as anybody wants to waste space for any kind of temple, they must be allowed to do so.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

This is just right-wing bigotry and fear-mongering to distract from the fact that Republican politicians are unfit to govern. No one stopped the mosque a couple of blocks further down, or the strip clubs and pawn shops that are even closer. The former site of the World Trade Center isn't some sort of holy ground, and as a secular nation America wouldn't recognize it as such in any case.

Bigots and cynical political operatives need to STFU.

 

[IBSpify]

I find it slightly facinating how this whole thing has morphed, I mean a couple months ago the republicans were saying that they shouldn't be allowed to build there, after the courts refused to call the Burlington Coat Factory building a historical landmark, they changed the topic so should they build the mosque there, the problem is that it doesn't mater if they should build it there or not, they purchased the building, they can build whatever they want there (within zoning permit laws of course).

It doesn't mater if they want to build a mosque there or a 7-11 it's all well within their rights. though it is somewhat fun to watch the crazy right wing scream about protecting the constitution one second, and then scream about wanting to prevent someone's free exercise of religion the next.

BTW as a note about the right wingers saying it would be like that Japanese putting up a shrine near pearl harbor, there is a Japanese culture center in Honolulu approximately 10 miles away from the sight of the attack, so ask yourself, how far away does it have to be before it's no longer an insult to those that lost loved ones in the attack?

 

[Don-Sama]

I can't see your connected with the mosque being build at the former WTC to the nazi's all being christians? I can't see how this is in any way important? as for the churches, you mean to say the nazi's after the war build churches (which makes all churches near the former deathcamps very young) close to the death camps in order to worship all the things they did?

as for nazi's being christians, it was well known to me, and I think it is well known throughout the world.

 

[sgrunterundt]

I can't see your connected with the mosque being build at the former WTC to the nazi's all being christians? I can't see how this is in any way important? as for the churches, you mean to say the nazi's after the war build churches (which makes all churches near the former deathcamps very young) close to the death camps in order to worship all the things they did?

His point was that muslims unrelated to Al-Qaeda building a mosque that happens to be near WTC is no more offensive than christians unrelated to the nazis building (or having) a church that happens to be near a death camp.

 

[rredwards]

Yep, that's the stupid Reichskonkordat and it's still in place today and it's a pain in the ass because it blatently violates freedom of religion and makes catholicism in Germany a matter of international law which is above our national laws and constitution.

But it has nothing to do with priests molesting children not being prosecuted. They are fully and legally responsible for their actions.

Please forgive my ignorance on the finer points of German law, but it is my understanding that because the Reichskonkordat supersedes German law, that the government needs official sanction from the Vatican before pursuing any criminal action against Vatican clergy. I'm not sure if you have the same type of civil law as in the USA which might not be subject to the Reichskonkordat, but I certainly would appreciate any correction or clarification on this matter.

His point was that muslims unrelated to Al-Qaeda building a mosque that happens to be near WTC is no more offensive than christians unrelated to the nazis building (or having) a church that happens to be near a death camp.

Yes exactly and it is a counter argument to a currently popular national argument involving Nazis as I have mentioned. It is being perpetuated by a dozen nationally respected pundits, political leaders, and even "news" reporters.

as for nazi's being Christians, it was well known to me, and I think it is well known throughout the world.

Not at all. Unfortunately, in the USA this fact is completely denied and even publicly ridiculed. I would point to C. S. Lewis as a popular source for this ignorance. Having lived through the war and converting to Christianity through logic (as if), he is unfortunately considered a credible source by the Christian community. In his works he specifically claims that Nazis were not Christians.

Unfortunately, other national figures in the USA also perpetuate this lie and "political correctness" has never given fair time to counter arguments when the mistake is made on the US national stage. Never once - like now. Additionally, our history books (in the USA) have been expunged of the connection, so the lie goes completely unchallenged in both the academic and public realms.

As for myself, I only stumbled across the fact by accident. When I started to mention it to Christians, they have always been 100% in full denial. I have never met a single Christian, who I have discussed this matter with, and who could admit the blatant truth of it. They are taught that Hitler was unequivocally an Atheist and it is considered "common knowledge". We are talking hundreds of people I have argued with on this matter and even non-Christians find it shocking to hear and consider it dubious. It is nice though, now that the new Pope was formally a Nazi, at least non-Christian Americans have "started" to listen to the possibility that the Nazis were Christian, but generally they simply assume Hitler was an Atheist as well (and thus all Nazis as an extension of Hitler).

The thinking patterns of humans bothers me.

 

[borrofburi]

I can't see your connected with the mosque being build at the former WTC to the nazi's all being christians? I can't see how this is in any way important? as for the churches, you mean to say the nazi's after the war build churches (which makes all churches near the former deathcamps very young) close to the death camps in order to worship all the things they did?

as for nazi's being christians, it was well known to me, and I think it is well known throughout the world.

I think he has a valid point... but what I think he's saying is this:
Mosques are as much shrines to the suicide attacks of 9/11 as churches are shrines to the nazi death camps and genocide. And there is a certain amount of validity in that.
EDIT: sgrunterundt beat me to it... and that rredwards already confirmed it... damn i was slow on this one...

 

[Giliell]

Please forgive my ignorance on the finer points of German law, but it is my understanding that because the Reichskonkordat supersedes German law, that the government needs official sanction from the Vatican before pursuing any criminal action against Vatican clergy. I'm not sure if you have the same type of civil law as in the USA which might not be subject to the Reichskonkordat, but I certainly would appreciate any correction or clarification on this matter.

No problem, I had to look it up myself.
Although the Vatican is an independent country, it's citizenship is very limited (about 550 people) and limited to their time of office. So the clergy are always citizens of their home country and subject to its laws.
But you have to ask the pope if you want to cut any money that's paid out of our pockets.

 

[Caractacus]

It's not a mosque, btw. It's a community centre with a prayer room. It also has a swimming pool and a gym, among other things.

It is, like Joe said, nothing but scare-mongering and baseless hysteria.

 

[rredwards]

I think he has a valid point... but what I think he's saying is this:
Mosques are as much shrines to the suicide attacks of 9/11 as churches are shrines to the nazi death camps and genocide. And there is a certain amount of validity in that.
EDIT: sgrunterundt beat me to it... and that rredwards already confirmed it... damn i was slow on this one...

HA! but you found the best way to say it.

It's not a mosque, btw. It's a community centre with a prayer room. It also has a swimming pool and a gym, among other things.

Um, ok but (prayer room)==(mosque) both literally and literally. So it will be as much a Mosque as any Mosque is a Mosque.

This is just right-wing bigotry and fear-mongering to distract from the fact that Republican politicians are unfit to govern. . .

Bigots and cynical political operatives need to STFU.

Because I know soooooo many Christian democrats who agree with this absurd sentiment, I am going to have to say that your labeling it "right-wing bigotry" is a specific case of "left-wing bigotry". As a bigot then, are you going to follow your own advice? I believe it was STFU. Wait, now that I think about it, Lincoln, Eisenhower, Roosevelt, and Powell are all buffoons and Carter was a god simply for his association with the democratic party! You are right, then my apologies.

 

[australopithecus]

Um, ok but (prayer room)==(mosque) both literally and literally. So it will be as much a Mosque as any Mosque is a Mosque.

Not really, my university has a prayer room and that doesn't make said room a mosque, church or temple by any stretch of the imagination. A prayer room is just that, a room for prayer. The fact it's designated as such doesn't make it more than it is. I could invite a muslim, christian, jew or hindu into my kitchen, tell them they can use it for prayer and that act doesn't magically render my room a mosque, church or temple. It's still just a room people can pray in.

I know for a fact my mum prays in her bedroom, that doesn't make her bedroom a church.

 

[rredwards]

Um, ok but (prayer room)==(mosque) both literally and literally. So it will be as much a Mosque as any Mosque is a Mosque.

Not really, my university has a prayer room and that doesn't make said room a mosque, church or temple by any stretch of the imagination. A prayer room is just that, a room for prayer. The fact it's designated as such doesn't make it more than it is. I could invite a muslim, christian, jew or hindu into my kitchen, tell them they can use it for prayer and that act doesn't magically render my room a mosque, church or temple. It's still just a room people can pray in.

I know for a fact my mum prays in her bedroom, that doesn't make her bedroom a church.

Right . . . you are aware that a Church is not a Mosque - right? Did you notice I used the word literally twice? Have you seen the inside of a Mosque before? If you look closely, you will notice that I did not say that a prayer room is a church. A church seems to require an alter and a prayer dictator and the pope or someone has to wave their magic wand over it.

A Mosque, however, is ANY place designated specifically for prayer - literally (3rd time now). For example, if you are a group of desert nomads and you throw a prayer tent up, you have not created a church with all of its required iconography, but you have created a Mosque. Maybe that is why desert nomads are Muslims and not Christians.

 

[Don-Sama]

@ hmmm.. sgrunterundt & borrofburi

I still think it's comparing apples with peaches, there are some fundamental differences in his statement which still makes me wonder why it is so important.

first of all, Poland a country's which housed the biggest bad ass death camps, it has had 1500 years (+/-) Christian domination there in the first place. Poland is a religious country, and has been so for a long long time. My point being, every bloody village has one or more churches there! building a church there is simply aught normal! The difference here with a mosque at ground zero is that america hasn't have had a big history with muslims, it isn't considered normal for a mosque to be build there, because the great great majority isn't muslim! (hmm well logical it's america anyhoo..)

second point is that the genocide on the Jews wasn't primarily a religious action, surely religious has fed some of it but that still doesn't makes it a religious action, like the 9/11 attack which was mostly motivated by faith and believe.

Naturally the holy books have their oh so sweet, and lovely parts, but both also have their evillish sides. Also please note that I haven't given my view point on the mosque at ground zero, i'm merely stating that I find the comparison made here inaccurate.

Now if the genocide by the nazi's was purely motivated by religion (not for ''curing'' the un-pure thread) and then Christians had after that.. no wait let's say it were scientologists, but not just scientologists but a splinder group of scientologists which believe slightly different things but yet pray at the same places as the normal scientologists do, which were the nazi's not christians. and then after the war scientologists would want to build a Scientology-church at or near Auschwitz, and then people would be like no no no!... now that, to me that sounds like a better comparison.


@ rredwards, okay I guess I have underestimated it, my bad ^^



~Don

 

[rredwards]

@ hmmm.. sgrunterundt & borrofburi
I still think it's comparing apples with peaches, there are some fundamental differences in his statement which still makes me wonder why it is so important.

My actual point is not to make a perfect analogy. However, the only thing needed to make it "perfect" is for someone to build a new church even closer to a death camp (see below). Why is it important? Hitler is commonly used as the signpost for depravity above all others. He is generally agreed to be the most effective mark of how low humans can possible go.

In the USA, it is taught that not only is he an atheist, but his actions and his Nazi party show how evil atheists are. He is depicted as a "Darwinist" who used "evolution" as an excuse to kill the Jewish people. Thus, he is held as the epitome of why evolution should not be taught in schools.

Never has there been such an obvious national case where "Hitlers beliefs" come to bear directly on the hypocrisy of Christians calling Muslims evil and pretending Hitler was driven by "godlessness". It is about the only opportunity to reach such a broad, eager US audience and have the possibility of them "hearing" the message that Nazis are Christians. If anti-atheist arguments were valid when Hitler was an atheists then, it may give pause for Christians to look in the mirror.

first of all, Poland a country's which housed the biggest bad ass death camps, it has had 1500 years (+/-) Christian domination there in the first place. Poland is a religious country, and has been so for a long long time. My point being, every bloody village has one or more churches there! building a church there is simply aught normal!

This is an interesting point, but if you look a little closer, you will see an interesting and important aspect. Poland and the "east" are Orthodox Christians (see below).

The difference here with a mosque at ground zero is that america hasn't have had a big history with muslims, it isn't considered normal for a mosque to be build there, because the great great majority isn't muslim! (hmm well logical it's america anyhoo..)

A few hundred feet further away than the new Mosque is a 40 year old Mosque. In fact, in that area of NYC, the Muslim population is dramatically significant. How could it NOT be normal to build it there, that is where the Muslim population LIVES. Additionally, pundits argue they should build it build it "anywhere else", completely ignoring not only the law, but also the fact that there are currently actions and protests to stop other Mosques being built across the country.

second point is that the genocide on the Jews wasn't primarily a religious action, surely religious has fed some of it but that still doesn't makes it a religious action, like the 9/11 attack which was mostly motivated by faith and believe.

The Orthodox Church is the 2nd oldest enemy of the Roman Catholic Church, second only to the Jewish people. Muslims and Protestants are nubile babes in comparison. If you examine Hitlers orders for the occupation of a country, it divides perfectly into two groups Roman Catholic/Protestant countries were treated "decently" and all others were treated nearly the same as the Jewish people were. You are saying this is coincidence?

A Nazi in a Roman Catholic or Protestant country could be brought up on charges for murdering civilians. In Orthodox countries, the Nazis were encouraged to murder on whim. The Nazis knew that it was easier to sympathize with "fellow Christians", which is why their propaganda painted people living in Orthodox countries as racially inferior - with more in common with monkeys than with humans.

Nazis were even required to swear an oath to god that they would obey Hitler to the death. After such an oath, everything Hitler might say carries the weight of god himself. Finally what you have is an organization that selected members based on religion, motivated enrolment and action through religious tradition, and used religion to draw the lines between "friend" and "animal". How is that not religious?

 

[Andiferous]

Hitler didn't target most religions specifically (except Jews and Jehovas Witnesses), but Christians were also interned. That said, I am no expert on religious persecution in WWII, but I have enough background to realise that Christianity earned no one a free pass, so it makes little sense to pin the blame on religion. Religion and racism make convenient political leashes, and Hitler used both to excess (despite the fact that he failed to make the "perfect" prototype himself.) WWII was hardly a religious crusade.

With respect to the community centre, why not?

To condemn Islam based on the actions of a small fringe (likely also using religion as a political vehicle) is a bit like using the IRA to stereotype all Catholics on a global scale. I suspect the placement of the community centre was calculated specifically to facilitate tolerance, because intolerance of Muslims has become a major issue since the attack.

 

[rredwards]

Hitler didn't target most religions specifically (except Jews and Jehovas Witnesses), but Christians were also interned. That said, I am no expert on religious persecution in WWII, but I have enough background to realise that Christianity earned no one a free pass, so it makes little sense to pin the blame on religion. Religion and racism make convenient political leashes, and Hitler used both to excess (despite the fact that he failed to make the "perfect" prototype himself.) WWII was hardly a religious crusade.

With respect to the community centre, why not?

To condemn Islam based on the actions of a small fringe (likely also using religion as a political vehicle) is a bit like using the IRA to stereotype all Catholics on a global scale. I suspect the placement of the community centre was calculated specifically to facilitate tolerance, because intolerance of Muslims has become a major issue since the attack.

So let me get this str8 - you are arguing that the twin towers and the Pentagon are Christian religious icons? No wait - you are saying all of the Sunni vs Shiite wars were not Muslim religious wars? Wait no you are saying that Hitler did not believe the religious stuff he spouted but Bin Laden does?

Sorry - I am just going to have to call whatever that first point you were trying to make balderdash. As for the second - uh - right? Yes, you are correct, everyone so far agrees - why not? Thanks for playing!

 

[Andiferous]

So let me get this str8 - you are arguing that the twin towers and the Pentagon are Christian religious icons? No wait - you are saying all of the Sunni vs Shiite wars were not Muslim religious wars? Wait no you are saying that Hitler did not believe the religious stuff he spouted but Bin Laden does?

Sorry - I am just going to have to call whatever that first point you were trying to make balderdash. As for the second - uh - right? Yes, you are correct, everyone so far agrees - why not? Thanks for playing!

Thanks for such a concise and informative reply.

What are you saying, exactly?

 

[theyounghistorian77]

With the national public debate against Muslims being allowed to build a Mosque in NYC, I think someone on the national stage should should help clear up a long standing misunderstanding in the west. That is, building a Mosque near ground zero has been compared to the Nazis building a shrine near the sites of former Jewish death camps, by "credible" national figures, and no one has stood up to their incredulity.

Forgive me for viewing this Mosque debate from the perspective of an outsider here as im not from your country, I thought the analogy was to one constructing a Shinto Shrine next to pearl Harbour, (or in Rush Limbaugh's case, a Hindu Temple.)



of course, These idiots like to cheerfully forget that there is already a Japanese Cultural Center of Hawaii not too far away, in honolulu.

But let me grant you that this is the anology that indeed they are making anyway, That someone somewhere has actualy invoked a political "Godwins Law" (and tbh, given some of the actions of the american Right. one example i commented on here. This does not surprise me.)

The very charter of the Nazi Party, referred to as the 25-point Program, stipulates clearly that the Nazi movement advocates Christianity and that its members may never offend Christian values.

It advocates a non-confessional "positive christianity" and i do not find the second half of your statement in any of the 25 points, nevermind the 24th. Sorry.

We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race.

The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the pinciple:

COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

It is good to remember that On April 13, 1928, Adolf Hitler made the following elucidation to the program: "Because of the mendacious interpretations on the part of our opponents of Point 17 of the program of the NSDAP, the following explanation is necessary.: Since the NSDAP is fundamentally based on the principle of private property, it is obvious that the expression "confiscation without compensation" refers merely to the creation of possible legal means of confiscating when necessary, land illegally acquired, or not administered in accordance with the national welfare. It is therefore directed in the first instance against the Jewish companies which speculate in land." And point 16 calls for a middle class (hardly socialistic anyways.)

"Prior to the War, Hitler and the Nazi Party demanded that large industries share profits to more equally distribute income ... This demand, however, was never formally carried out by the Party." Matt Brundage.

NONE of the economic principles were even talked about being put into action after they were written. "A pseudo-socialist note was sounded by the demand for abolition, of unearned incomes, the confiscation of war profits... It was a typical far-right document of its time. In practice it did not mean very much," Richard J Evans, "The Coming of the Third Reich". p179

Also In an attempt to obtain financial contributions from industrialists, Hitler wrote a pamphlet in 1927 entitled The Road to Resurgence which refuted the more socialistic elements. Only a small number of these pamphlets were printed and they were only meant for the eyes of the top industrialists in Germany. The reason that the pamphlet was kept secret was that it contained information that would have upset Hitler's working-class supporters. In the pamphlet Hitler implied that the anti-capitalist measures included in the original twenty-five points of the NSDAP programme would not be implemented if he gained power.

Hitler began to argue that "capitalists had worked their way to the top through their capacity, and on the basis of this selection they have the right to lead." Hitler claimed that national socialism meant all people doing their best for society and posed no threat to the wealth of the rich. Some prosperous industrialists were actualy convinced by these arguments and gave donations to the Nazi Party, however, the vast majority continued to support other parties, especially the right-wing German Nationalist Peoples Party (DNVP).

"Do you think I'd be so crazy as to destroy German heavy industry? Those producers worked their way to the top by their own merits, and, because of this process of selection, which proves that they are an elite, they have a right to lead!" Adolf Hitler to Otto Straesser, October 1930. Quoted in Helmut Heiber, Adolf Hitler, (Berlin, 1960) p68.

Also remember that

"in 1920, the German working class and the lower middle classes were saturated in a radical anti-capitalism; such phrases were essential for any politician who wanted to attract their support." - Alan bullock. Hitler p75

In short, the 25 points are very effective propaganda, and in terms of economics, something usualy brought out by the ameteur Crowd in discussions.

The name "3rd Reich" refers specifically to only the Christian Kingdoms (Reichs) from German history and excludes German kingdoms that were not "ordained by Christ".

The 1st reich refers to the Holy roman empire. 962-1806
The 2nd reich refers to The German empire. 1871-1918

The motto of the German empire was of course, "Gott mit uns" Trans: "God with us". But that prase, is more infamous because of this

Those who use such items to prove his "christianity" are about as silly as those idiots who use this to prove his "communism"

It's all propaganda really.

Alaric however, is not counted because his reign was before the Germans converted to Christianity.

Wrong. alaric, too, was a Christian, though an Arian, not Orthodox.

Hitler himself outlawed non-secular schools and required all children to attend Christian schools.

You mean State schools. The sole purpose of the educational structure was to create a future generation that was blindly loyal to Hitler and the Nazis. Yes It is true that Religion had been included in the German school system for generations. This varied greatly in the different regions of Germany. The various German states that entered the German Empire in 1871 had widely different laws and traditions concerning education. Germany is a country of mixed religious traditions. Many German states, however, were much less diverse than the country as a whole. Thus most Bavarians, for example, were Catholic and most Prussians protesant. These patterns developed as the population generally adopted the religion of the rulers. As many local communities were primarily a specific religion, the local minister or priest would commonly be asked to teach the religious course and prepare the boys for First Communion or other religious experiences. The religious traditions and school instruction of religiion were mostly maintained by the Weimar Republic and thus inherited by the Third Reich in 1933.

One little detail. In 1937, pupils were give the choice of studying Religious Instructions or not. The amount of time on religious instruction was reduced and it ceased to be a subject for school-leaving examinations and attendance at school prayers was made optional. However, Prayers written by Baldur von Schirach, the head of the Hitler Youth, that praised Adolf Hitler, were introduced and had to be said before eating school meals.

Finally, it was Christian "Passion Plays" in the vein of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" that Nazis used to create such fervent anti-jewish sentiment and drive Nazi party enrollment. The Nazi party and Nazi government even created travel packages and supplemented discounts for families that went to see approved "Passion Plays"

This is one element of Nazi antisemitic Propaganda, In germany, Passion Plays have a long tradition with the Oberammergau Passion Play for example dating back to 1634.

Here's another

The antisemitic Der Sturmer, in 1934 Playing on the "Blood Libel" theme. and discussing whether or not Jews drain Christian children's blood and drink it.

How is western civilization is such stark denial that Nazis were and are still today Christians?

Here's why, and here's my argument.

Hitler most certainly considered himself religious, even if he was anti-clerical ( As shown by the treatment of pastor niemoller and dietrich bonhoeffer. This i find, is well known amongst the Religious out there). Of course, Hitler had his own private view of Jesus, that of an revolutionary and Jew hater. So in some twisted sense Hitler thought he was acting in the tradition of Jesus. Was he christian? Yes. Was Hitler in the tradition of mainstream Christianity? Perhaps not, and it is the latter i feel that makes many falsely suspect he was an atheist.

Here he is in full flow (note that Hitler had a different conception of Socialism to what we would ascribe to it)

"Socialism is a question of attitude toward life, of the ethical outlook on life of all who live together in a common ethnic or national space. Socialism is a Weltanschauung!

But in actual fact there is nothing new about this Weltanschauung. Whenever I read the New Testament Gospels and the revelations of various of the prophets and imagine myself back in the era of the Roman and late Hellenistic, as well as the Oriental world, I am astonished at all that has been made of the teachings of these divinely inspired men, especially Jesus Christ, which are so clear and unique, heightened to religiosity. They were the ones who created this new worldview which we now call socialism, they established it, they taught it and they lived it! But the communities that called themselves Christian churches did not understand it! Or if they did, they denied Christ and betrayed him! For they transformed the holy idea of Christian socialism into its opposite! They killed it, just as, at the time, the Jews nailed Jesus to the cross; they buried it, just as the body of Christ was buried. But they allowed Christ to be resurrected, instigating the belief that his teachings too, were reborn!

It is in this that the monstrous crime of these enemies of Christian socialism lies! What the basest hypocrisy they carry before them the cross-- the instrument of that murder which, in their thoughts, they commit over and over-- as a new divine sign of Christian awareness, and allow mankind to kneel to it. They even pretend to be preaching the teachings of Christ. But their lives and deeds are a constant blow against these teachings and their Creator and a defamation of God!

We are the first to exhume these teachings! Through us alone, and not until now, do these teachings celebrate their resurrection! Mary and Magdalene stood at the empty tomb. For they were seeking the dead man! But we intend to raise the treasures of the living Christ!

Herein lies the essential element of our mission: we must bring back to the German Volk the recognition of those teachings! For what did the falsification of the original concept of Christian love, of the community of fate before God and of socialism lead to? By their fruits ye shall know them! The suppression of freedom of opinion, the persecution of the true Christians, the vile mass murders of the Inquisition and the burning of witches, the armed campaigns against the people of free and true Christian faith, the destruction of towns and villages, the hauling away of their cattle and their goods, the destruction of their flourishing economies, and the condemnation of their leaders before tribunals, which, in their unrelenting hypocrisy, can only be described as balaphemous. That is the true face of those sanctimonious churches that have placed themselves between God and man, motivated by selfishness, personal greed for recognition and gain, and the ambition to maintain their high-handed willfulness against Christ's deep understanding of the necessity of a socialist community of men and nations. We must turn all the sentiments of the Volk, all its thinking, acting, even its beliefs, away from the anti-Christian, smug individualism of the past, from the egotism and stupid Phariseeism of personal arrogance, and we must educate the youth in particular in the spirit of those of Christ's words that we must interpret anew: love one another; be considerate of your fellow man; remember that each one of you is not alone a creature of God, but that you are all brothers! This youth will, wit loathing and contempt, abandon those hypocrites who have Christ on their lips but the devil in their hearts, who give alms in order to remain undisturbed as they themselves throw their money around, who invoke the Fatherland as they fill their own purses by the toil of others, who preach peace and incite to war" - Hitler in Memoirs of a Confinant, by Otto Wagener. p.139-140

Overall, I would still say open Religion was used chiefly For Propaganda purposes. Even If Hitler was a religious Man himself

Here's one of the reasons why Hitler used religion for propaganda.

"Apart from the organized sectors of the working class, the Nazis had greatest difficulty, as is well known, in penetrating the Catholic sub-culture, where the dominant image of Hitler provided by Catholic 'opinion leaders' was equally negative. The main attack was levelled at the anti-Christian essence of the Nazi Movement and of its leader's philosophy. Publications sought to demonstrate that Hitler's ideas stood in direct contradiction to the teaching of the Christian catechism. Especially in Bavaria, where Catholicism was dominant and extreme anti-Marxism widespread, he and his Movement were seen as a variant of 'godless Bolshevism'-an association which was frequently to recur after 1933 during the 'Church struggle'. Though Catholic anti-Nazi polemics generally concentrated on attacking the anti-religious, and especially anti-Catholic, thrust of Nazism, some publications did offer a devastating assault on the entire Nazi doctrine. Hitler's brutality, contempt for human rights, warmongering, and elevation of force to a principle of political behaviour, were all castigated in Catholic publications of the early 1930s. One Catholic weekly above all, Der Gerade Weg, published in Munich under the editorship of Dr Fritz Gerlich-murdered in Dachau in 1934-and Fr. Ingbert Naab, kept up a relentless assault on Hitler, describing him in September 1932, at a time when, despite his open show of solidarity with five of his SA men who had been condemned to death for the brutal murder of a communist in Potempa, the Centre Party was involved in negotiations with the Nazis, as 'the incarnation of evil'.

A few months earlier, the alleged hostility of Hitler to the Church had played a key role in persuading the Catholic parties to support the Protestant, and 'pious', Hindenburg in the election for the Reich Presidency. ... They were equally concerned to attack and debunk the neo-pagan deification and mythologizing of Hitler. One speaker told of a woman who had erected an altar in her house with a picture of Hitler in place of the monstrance, and declared that he could simply not understand the German people for letting itself be led astray by such a charlatan: 'Hitler has succeeded in organizing the idiots, and only idiots, hysterics, and fools to go the NSDAP.' His election, he prophesied, would bring irreparable harm and destruction to Germany.

Hitler was himself well aware of the need to counter his anti-Christian image if his Party were to break through in Catholic areas. He was keen even in the early 1920s not to antagonize unnecessarily the Catholic Church. And during the rise to power the NSDAP made particular efforts-largely in vain-in Catholic areas such as the Rhineland and Bavaria to emphasize its 'positive Christianity', to deny the slur that it was an anti-religious party, and to claim that National Socialism alone could provide the Church with a barrier against Marxism." In 1930 Hitler felt compelled to distance himself from Alfred Rosenberg, one of the leading Party ideologues, whose book The Myth of the 20th Century had cemented his reputation as the dominant representative of the 'new heathenism' and prominent 'hate figure' of the Catholic Church. And speaking before a mass gathering in the Catholic stronghold of Bavaria in April 1932, Hitler told his audience that while north German Protestants had labeled him a hireling of Rome and south German Catholics a pagan worshipper of Woden, he was merely of the opinion-here playing to some widespread anti-clerical sentiments-that priests in Germany, just as was the case in Italy, should end their political activities and confine themselves to denominational matters and pastoral duties: what the Pope had admitted in Italy, he concluded, could not be sinful in Germany. In fact, he was at pains to stress, he himself was deeply religious, the 'spiritual distress' of the German people even greater than its economic misery, and the toleration of over fourteen million anti-religious atheistic Marxists in Germany highly regrettable.

Despite these disdainers, the negative image of 'neo-heathenism', which the NSDAP could not shake off; undoubtedly played a considerable role in bolstering the high level of relative immunity to Nazism which prevailed before 1933 in Catholic circles. Even after the disappearance of the Catholic press in the early years of the Third Reich, Catholic clergy were able to sustain the image through their own subtle 'propaganda' methods-greatly assisted by the often crude assaults of the Nazis themselves in the 'Church struggle'-and it remained throughout the Third Reich an important basis of the alienation of the Catholic population from the regime and of forms of partial opposition to Nazism in the Catholic subculture. Even so, the notion that there might be some authoritarian, patriotic, anti-Marxist, residual 'good' in Nazism, that 'National Socialism, notwithstanding everything, might succeed some day in eliminating from its programme and its activities all that which conflicted in principle and practice with Catholicism', offered the opening for the volte-face which Catholic bishops were prepared to make following Hitler's avowals of tolerance and support for the Church in March 1933 and the potential, too, for driving a wedge between 'the god-fearing statesman' Hitler and the anti-Christian Party radicals, especially Rosenberg." - Ian Kershaw. "The 'Hitler Myth': Image and Reality in the Third Reich" pp 24-37 (excerpts)


"The sagging morale and worsening of mood in the second half of 1941 was not solely determined by the changing fortunes on the eastern Front. Events at home were also playing their part. The gathering force of worrying rumor about the killing in asylums of mentally sick and incurably ill patients was one factor which, especially but not solely among practising Christians, was giving rise to grave concern and threatening to alienate support for the regime. In August 1941, news of the courageous open denunciation of the 'euthanasia action' by Bishop Galen of Mà¼nster spread rapidly and seems to have persuaded Hitler to halt the killing, at least inside the Reich itself. Some reports by the Nazi authorities on the unrest which had arisen claimed that it was having an impact on confidence in Hitler himself. It may even have been the case--a suggestion emanating, admittedly, from a piece of post-war testimony--that the Reich Propaganda Ministry deliberately started off a rumour that the Fà¼hrer, on discovering what was taking place (in an 'action' which, in reality, he himself had authorized in writing), had given the order to halt it immediately. According to this interpretation, the protection of the 'Fà¼hrer myth'--of the legend that Hitler was kept in the dark about the misdeeds of the regime, and acted promptly on learning of them--was a crucial component in bringing the 'euthanasia action' to an end.

Opinion in Catholic parts of the Reich in particular was greatly influenced by the new wave of attacks on the position of the Church which had been in spring 1941 and gathered momentum during the summer and autumn. They appear to have been initiated by the head of the Party Chancellery, Martin Bormann, probably under pressure at Gau level, for whom the apparent strengthening of the Church's hold over the population during the war was a notable provocation. New measures against the Church--including the confiscation of monastic property, further restrictions on provision of religious instruction and on publications, the removal of the last nuns from any form of social or education work, and interference with holy days and with the form of school prayers--where guaranteed to stir up antagonism and unrest in Catholic regions." - Kershaw, Ibid. pp. 176-177.

Most of what you repeated was Nazi propaganda, and it's not a reliable way to Judge him Unfortunately.

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

apologies for sounding a bit harsh, But atheists shouldn't overplay this hand that they have.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Because I know soooooo many Christian democrats who agree with this absurd sentiment, I am going to have to say that your labeling it "right-wing bigotry" is a specific case of "left-wing bigotry". As a bigot then, are you going to follow your own advice? I believe it was STFU. Wait, now that I think about it, Lincoln, Eisenhower, Roosevelt, and Powell are all buffoons and Carter was a god simply for his association with the democratic party! You are right, then my apologies.

Why don't you go troll somewhere else?