homosexuality, religion, real conservatism

order now!

Unread postby Topher » Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:20 pm

WeaponOfMassInstruction wrote:Hitler, like Stalin and Mao, substituted the primacy of man for the primacy of God and rejected the notion that there was any higher authority than the self.


Do you have any evidence for this statement?

Everything I've read has indicated that, while he was critical of some elements of traditional Christianity, he still claimed to believe in Jesus Christ and used elements of both Catholicism and Protestantism in his motivations and means of governance. I see no evidence of him renouncing his faith, only some bits of questioning.

Topher
Topher Kersting
User avatar
Topher
Media pundit
 
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Unread postby Jim Rutledge » Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:43 pm

MrSinatra wrote:they were all christian.


So, Mr. S, cite your sources that Mr. Jefferson was indeed a Christian.

Jim Rutledge
Jim Rutledge
Media pundit
 
Posts: 566
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:28 pm

Unread postby Jim Rutledge » Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:12 pm

CWNelson79 wrote:Atheism is nothing more then a rebellion against God.

Well in my case, atheism is an affirmation of personal responsibility and ethical conduct.
god, is ultimately irrelevant.

Jim Rutledge
Jim Rutledge
Media pundit
 
Posts: 566
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:28 pm

Unread postby CWNelson79 » Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:32 am

Quotes of the founding father's


John Adams and John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]

John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress


We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798


"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson


Samuel Adams: “ He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… Our forefathers opened the Bible to all.” [ "American Independence," August 1, 1776. Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia]


“ Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity… and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.” [October 4, 1790]


John Quincy Adams:
• “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?
--1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.

“The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.”
John Quincy Adams. Letters to his son. p. 61

Benjamin Franklin:
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech

“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."

Alexander Hamilton:
• Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:
(1) Christianity
(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.
“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”

On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”

"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."

John Hancock:
• “In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, …at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness… Resolved; …Thursday the 11th of May…to humble themselves before God under the heavy judgments felt and feared, to confess the sins that have deserved them, to implore the Forgiveness of all our transgressions, and a spirit of repentance and reformation …and a Blessing on the … Union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights [for which hitherto we desire to thank Almighty God]…That the people of Great Britain and their rulers may have their eyes opened to discern the things that shall make for the peace of the nation…for the redress of America’s many grievances, the restoration of all her invaded liberties, and their security to the latest generations.
"A Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, with a total abstinence from labor and recreation. Proclamation on April 15, 1775"


Patrick Henry:
"Orator of the Revolution."
• This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”
—The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]

“The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed.”


John Jay:
“ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Source: October 12, 1816. The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), Vol. IV, p. 393.

“Whether our religion permits Christians to vote for infidel rulers is a question which merits more consideration than it seems yet to have generally received either from the clergy or the laity. It appears to me that what the prophet said to Jehoshaphat about his attachment to Ahab ["Shouldest thou help the ungodly and love them that hate the Lord?" 2 Chronicles 19:2] affords a salutary lesson.” [The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 1794-1826, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1893), Vol. IV, p.365]

Thomas Jefferson:
“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]


Thomas Paine:
“ It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.”
“ The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools, in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labour with studied ingenuity to ascribe every thing they behold to innate properties of matter, and jump over all the rest by saying, that matter is eternal.” “The Existence of God--1810”


George Washington:

Farewell Address: The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion" ...and later: "...reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle..."

What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]


"To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" [May 2, 1778, at Valley Forge]

During his inauguration, Washington took the oath as prescribed by the Constitution but added several religious components to that official ceremony. Before taking his oath of office, he summoned a Bible on which to take the oath, added the words “So help me God!” to the end of the oath, then leaned over and kissed the Bible.

Nelly Custis-Lewis (Washington’s adopted daughter):
Is it necessary that any one should [ask], “Did General Washington avow himself to be a believer in Christianity?" As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic devotion to his country. His mottos were, "Deeds, not Words"; and, "For God and my Country."

“ O Most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ, my merciful and loving Father; I acknowledge and confess my guilt in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. I have called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of my sins, but so coldly and carelessly that my prayers are become my sin, and they stand in need of pardon.”
“ I have sinned against heaven and before Thee in thought, word, and deed. I have contemned Thy majesty and holy laws. I have likewise sinned by omitting what I ought to have done and committing what I ought not. I have rebelled against the light, despising Thy mercies and judgment, and broken my vows and promise. I have neglected the better things. My iniquities are multiplied and my sins are very great. I confess them, O Lord, with shame and sorrow, detestation and loathing and desire to be vile in my own eyes as I have rendered myself vile in Thine. I humbly beseech Thee to be merciful to me in the free pardon of my sins for the sake of Thy dear Son and only Savior Jesus Christ who came to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me.”
[George Washington; from a 24 page authentic handwritten manuscript book dated April 21-23, 1752
William J. Johnson George Washington, the Christian (New York: The Abingdon Press, New York & Cincinnati, 1919), pp. 24-35.]

"Although guided by our excellent Constitution in the discharge of official duties, and actuated, through the whole course of my public life, solely by a wish to promote the best interests of our country; yet, without the beneficial interposition of the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, we could not have reached the distinguished situation which we have attained with such unprecedented rapidity. To HIM, therefore, should we bow with gratitude and reverence, and endeavor to merit a continuance of HIS special favors". [1797 letter to John Adams]
"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?"
Gal. 4:16
User avatar
CWNelson79
Media pundit
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 1:51 am

Hitler

Unread postby CWNelson79 » Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:37 am

The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:


Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:


National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

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. (p 43)


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 the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)


19th October, 1941, night:


The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941, midday:


Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight:


Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)


14th December, 1941, midday:


Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:


There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday:


It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)
"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?"
Gal. 4:16
User avatar
CWNelson79
Media pundit
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 1:51 am

Unread postby CWNelson79 » Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:41 am

Materialistic atheism is one of the easiest worldviews to refute. A materialistic atheist believes that nature is all that there is. He believes that there is no transcendent God who oversees and maintains creation. Many atheists believe that their worldview is rational—and scientific. However, by embracing materialism, the atheist has destroyed the possibility of knowledge, as well as science and technology. In other words, if atheism were true, it would be impossible to prove anything!

Reasoning involves using the laws of logic. These include the law of non-contradiction which says that you can’t have A and not-A at the same time and in the same relationship. For example, the statement “My car is in the parking lot, and it is not the case that my car is in the parking lot” is necessarily false by the law of non-contradiction. Any rational person would accept this law. But why is this law true? Why should there be a law of non-contradiction, or for that matter, any laws of reasoning? The Christian can answer this question. For the Christian there is an absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern our thoughts after God’s. The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks. The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person’s opinion of how we ought to think, rather it stems from God’s self-consistent nature. God cannot deny Himself ( 2 Timothy 2:13), and so, the way God upholds the universe will necessarily be non-contradictory.

Laws of logic are God’s standard for thinking. Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, the laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariant entities. In other words, they are not made of matter—they apply everywhere and at all times. Laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature. And they are necessary for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God.

The materialistic atheist can’t have laws of logic. He believes that everything that exists is material—part of the physical world. But laws of logic are not physical. You can’t stub your toe on a law of logic. Laws of logic cannot exist in the atheist’s world, yet he uses them to try to reason. This is inconsistent. He is borrowing from the Christian worldview to argue against the Christian worldview. The atheist’s view cannot be rational because he uses things (laws of logic) that cannot exist according to his profession.

The debate over the existence of God is a bit like a debate over the existence of air.3 Can you imagine someone arguing that air doesn’t actually exist? He would offer seemingly excellent “proofs” against the existence of air, while simultaneously breathing air and expecting that we can hear his words as the sound is transmitted through the air. In order for us to hear and understand his claim, it would have to be wrong. Likewise, the atheist, in arguing that God does not exist must use laws of logic that only make sense if God does exist. In order for his argument to make sense, it would have to be wrong.

How can the atheist respond?
The atheist might say, “Well, I can reason just fine, and I don’t believe in God.” But this is no different than the critic of air saying, “Well, I can breathe just fine, and I don’t believe in air.” This isn’t a rational response. Breathing requires air, not a profession of belief in air. Likewise, logical reasoning requires God, not a profession of belief in Him. Of course the atheist can reason; it’s because God has made his mind and given him access to the laws of logic—and that’s the point. It’s because God exists that reasoning is possible. The atheist can reason, but within his own worldview he cannot account for his ability to reason.

The atheist might respond, “Laws of logic are conventions made up by man.” But conventions are (by definition) conventional. That is, we all agree to them and so they work—like driving on the right side of the road. But if laws of logic were conventional, then different cultures could adopt different laws of logic (like driving on the left side of the road). So, in some cultures it might be perfectly fine to contradict yourself. In some societies truth could be self-contradictory. Clearly that wouldn’t do. If laws of logic are just conventions, then they are not universal laws. Rational debate would be impossible if laws of logic were conventional, because the two opponents could simply pick different standards for reasoning. Each would be right according to his own arbitrary standard.

The atheist might respond, “Laws of logic are material—they are made of electro-chemical connections in the brain.” But then the laws of logic are not universal; they would not extend beyond the brain. In other words, we couldn’t argue that contradictions cannot occur on Mars, since no one’s brain is on Mars. In fact, if the laws of logic are just electro-chemical connections in the brain, then they would differ somewhat from person to person because everyone has different connections in their brain.

Sometimes an atheist will attempt to answer with a more pragmatic response: “We use the laws of logic because they work.” Unfortunately for him, that isn’t the question. We all agree the laws of logic work; they work because they’re true. The question is why do they exist in the first place? How can the atheist account for absolute standards of reasoning like the laws of logic? How can non-material things like laws exist if the universe is material only?

As a last resort, the atheist may give up a strictly materialistic view and agree that there are immaterial, universal laws. This is a huge concession; after all, if a person is willing to concede that immaterial, universal, unchanging entities can exist, then he must consider the possibility that God exists. But this concession does not save the atheist’s position. He must still justify the laws of logic. Why do they exist? And what is the point of contact between the material physical world and the immaterial world of logic? In other words, why does the material universe feel compelled to obey immaterial laws? The atheist cannot answer these questions. His worldview cannot be justified; it is arbitrary and thus irrational.

Conclusions
Clearly, atheism is not a rational worldview. It is self-refuting because the atheist must first assume the opposite of what he is trying to prove in order to be able to prove anything. As Dr. Cornelius VanTil put it, “[A]theism presupposes theism.” Laws of logic require the existence of God—and not just any god, but the Christian God. Only the God of the Bible can be the foundation for knowledge (Proverbs 1:7; Colossians 2:3). Since the God of Scripture is immaterial, sovereign, and beyond time, it makes sense to have laws of logic that are immaterial, universal, and unchanging. Since God has revealed Himself to man, we are able to know and use logic. Since God made the universe and since God made our minds, it makes sense that our minds would have an ability to study and understand the universe. But if the brain is simply the result of mindless evolutionary processes that conveyed some sort of survival value in the past, why should we trust its conclusions? If the universe and our minds are simply the results of time and chance, as the atheist contends, why would we expect that the mind could make sense of the universe? How could science and technology be possible?

Rational thinking, science, and technology make sense in a Christian worldview. The Christian has a basis for these things; the atheist does not. This is not to say that atheists cannot be rational about some things. They can because they too are made in God’s image and have access to God’s laws of logic. But they have no rational basis for rationality within their own worldview. Likewise, atheists can be moral, but they have no basis for that morality according to what they claim to believe. An atheist is a walking bundle of contradictions. He reasons and does science, yet he denies the very God that makes reasoning and science possible. On the other hand, the Christian worldview is consistent and makes sense of human reasoning and experience.
"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?"
Gal. 4:16
User avatar
CWNelson79
Media pundit
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 1:51 am

Unread postby Topher » Sat Apr 26, 2008 9:22 am

CW,

Thank you once again for showing your ability to quote Answers In Genesis, this time, of course, without giving proper attribution, or didn't you mean to take credit for their work yourself? [sarcasm](I love plagiarism!)[/sarcasm]

Of course, you then grab a canned response from what I think is answers.org, but several sites threw together the Hitler quotes (all single-sourced, all without the context of the conversations or to whom he was speaking). Hitler was enough of a pragmatist that if he were trying to curry favor with some atheists or members of a non-Christian religion, he would certainly have spoken out against it in private. I'll have to see if I can find a copy of the quotes in context.

I'll only assume that your quote list from the founding fathers is another non-attributed copy-and-paste job.

Do you have any arguments of your own? I'm not terribly interested in arguing with other websites. They tend to be a bit boring.

Topher
Topher Kersting
User avatar
Topher
Media pundit
 
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA

Unread postby WeaponOfMassInstruction » Sat Apr 26, 2008 11:05 am

Well, in CW's defense, there really is no way to get new quotes from people who have been dead 175 years plus- unless you're Hillary having seances with Eleanor Roosevelt of course (and yes I'll concede the anachronism).

You pretty much have to find the relevant quotes from some source and that is now the internet. While I agree that CW should note his source, I also think that you're setting up a bit of a diversionary argument. The fact that he does not provide proper attribution in no way diminishes the relevance of the quotes. That assuming, of course, that his source isn;t something akin to The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion. Or anything Oliver Stone ever did.

Do you have any evidence for this statement?

Everything I've read has indicated that, while he was critical of some elements of traditional Christianity, he still claimed to believe in Jesus Christ and used elements of both Catholicism and Protestantism in his motivations and means of governance. I see no evidence of him renouncing his faith, only some bits of questioning.


I'll do some serious digging on this over the weekend. On cursory research, the immediate problem that must be overcome is the bias of those writing potential source material.

When I Googled "hitler and religion", I got back several tens of thousands of hits- as one might expect. But what surprised me was that, of the first thirty or so returns, most were from atheist websites and writers who were very quick to distance themselves from old Adolph and point out that he was "raised" Catholic. I can;t say that I blame atheists for not embracing Hitler as one of their own- associations with Hitler and Nazism, Stalin and Communism or Mao and Totalitarianism will tend to give you a bad name every time- but a bit more research calls that claim into question.

For example: http://www.adherents.com/people/ph/Adolf_Hitler.html

I vividly remember a high school conversation with a friend I'd known since we were eight. I'd pointed out that Hitler was essentially a pagan, not a Christian, but my friend absolutely refused to believe it. No matter how much evidence I presented, he kept insisting that Nazi Germany was an extension of Christianity, acting out its age-old vendetta against the Jews. Not that he spoke from any personal study of the subject; he just knew. He'd heard it so many times it'd become an article of faith - one of those things "everyone knows."... Well, sometimes myths die hard. But this one took a hit in early January, at the hands of one Julie Seltzer Mandel, a Jewish law student at Rutgers whose grandmother survived internment at Auschwitz.

A couple of years ago Mandel read through 148 bound volumes of papers gathered by the American OSS (the World War II-era predecessor of the CIA) to build the case against Nazi leaders on trial at Nuremberg. Now she and some fellow students are publishing what they found in the journal Law and Religion (www.lawandreligion.com)... The upshot: a ton of evidence that Hitler sought to wipe out Christianity just as surely as he sought to wipe out the Jews.

The first installment (the papers are being published in stages) includes a 108-page OSS outline, "The Persecution of the Christian Churches." ...how the Nazis - faced with a country where the overwhelming majority considered themselves Christians - built their power while plotting to undermine and eradicate the churches, and the people's faith... From the start of the Nazi movement, "the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognized as a purpose of the National Socialist movement," said Baldur von Scvhirach, leader of the group that would come to be known as Hitler youth. But "explicitly" only within party ranks: as the OSS stated, "considerations of expedience made it impossible" for the movement to make this public until it consolidated power... By 1937, Pope Pius XI denounced the Nazis for waging "a war of extermination" against the church... Catholic priests found police snatching sermons out of their hands, often in mid-reading

...the notion that the church either gave birth to Hitler or walked hand-in-hand with him as a partner is, simply, slander. Hitler himself knew better. "One is either a Christian or a German," he said. "You can't be both."

From: Jadwiga Biskupska (Cornell University), "Hitler & Triumph of the Will: A Nazi Religion in the Catholic Style" in Undergraduate Quarterly, September/November 2004, page 147 (URL: http://www.undergradquarterly.com/EJour ... kupska.pdf):


And yes I am willing to accept the possibility that there is bias here because the website comes from a religious source.

From additional reading, I have come to the conclusion that Hitler wasn't necessarily anti-God or anti-religion, at least not in the same way that militant atheists are.

My conclusion is that Hitler sought to make Nazism the sole acceptable religion in Germany and the territories he occupied and sought to make himself its 'god'.

In that sense, he is a prima facie example of a secular progressive.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlerchristian.html

http://www.geocities.com/athens/olympus/9587/attrelig.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_and_religion


The consensus of these and other sources seems to be that Germany had religion far too deeply ingrained for Hitler to command that it be discarded immediately upon his ascension to the Chancellorship. While his ultimate goal was, as I've stated, to impose Nazism as the official religion with him as the 'creator', he was smart enough to know that he must travel that path slowly and incrementally.

Not unlike secular progressives have done here in the United States.

So most of the quotes- though not all- that seem to show Hitler embracing Protestantism and Catholicism tend to come from his early years as Fuhrer, when the threat of his overthrow was greatest (until the last few years of his reign when the threat was even higher). Hitler knew that, before you can replace, you have to compromise. After all, he entered government not as the leader but as essentially von Hindenburg's 'vice president'. So the path he took was first to blend Nazism with Protestantism and Catholicism to acclimate the people to Nazism's strictures in a way that required only a modest change. Once the people accepted modest change, Hitler then moved on to larger and still larger changes.

Again, this is identical to the SP agenda in the United States.

Hitler's 'genius'- if I can call it that- was in knowing how hard he could push (at least in the beginning). In fact, one of the authors of the sources I cite above says that, at least early on, Hilter fought only those wars that he knew he could win: Anchluss, Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, Poland, France.....and against traditional religion. And he won these battles by trusting in his own judgement over that of his lieutenants, many, if not most, of whom had far more applicable experience in those areas (Hitler as messiah).

During the 1930s Hitler tried to nationalize Germany's churches (German Christian), with restrictions allowing only German membership. Some Protestants resisted by forming the Confessing Church. A common Nazi song replaced the words to the German carol Silent Night with the following lyrics:

Silent night! Holy night!
All is calm, and all is bright
Only the Chancellor steadfast in fight
Watches o’er Germany by day and by night
Always caring for us.
Silent night! Holy night!
All is calm, and all is bright
Adolf Hitler is Germany’s wealth
Brings us greatness, favour and health
Oh give us Germans all power!


(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_and_religion)

Is substituting your own identity for that of God the mark of someone who is traditionally religious?

Also, I'd urge those who have questions along the lines of wondering just how similar Nazism is to the Liberal movement to read Jonah Goldberg's fantastic book "Liberal Fascism". He makes a far more compelling argument that Hitler was a fellow traveller on the Left and not the Right than I ever could.
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
User avatar
WeaponOfMassInstruction
Mod Team
 
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Alabama

Unread postby Izzyism » Mon May 19, 2008 5:52 am

I only wish CW listened to Reagan himself because he sounds more like a mild (liberal thinking) Conservative than a staunch Conservative. I believe the only major flaw in the Republican party is the hard core social right. CW, you are taking everything incredibly black-and-white--even worse using the Bible to justify right verses wrong. This is offensive in so many ways, one especially depicting that the religions that accept the Bible are hence more ruling than others that do not. Those tactics for arguing are about as low as the left uses. It's controlling society and enforcing illogical laws that the government isn't even closely needing to be involved in. What ever happened to keeping government as small as possible? If governing social decisions becomes the norm, then are Democracy might as well be called a Theocracy, because now its the Bible that governs society, not the people. And that is the America that I know I would never want to live in, if it ever comes to that.
Izzyism
New Member
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:50 am

Unread postby CWNelson79 » Mon May 19, 2008 7:34 am

Izzy izzy izzy. I am sorry that the bible bothers you, and that i live by what it says is right and wrong. And yes i completely use the bible to justify right and wrong because there is no other way, since ofcourse the bible is the word of God. I deny all false religions, and anything that contradicts the bible. And to be honest izzy you offend me by thinking i have to compromise my beliefs to be a conservative. That speak sounds neo conservative to me izzy. If you talk about illogical laws feel free to point out any christian made government laws. Izzy, i never said anything about a theocracy, you did.

To be honest izzy, i don't care if you don't like the bible and it rules. You are talking from a point of view which is ignoring the complete authority of God and thats illogical to me.
"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?"
Gal. 4:16
User avatar
CWNelson79
Media pundit
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 1:51 am

Unread postby steve1633 » Tue May 20, 2008 9:51 pm

cw
could I ask why you choose to see the bible as the word of god? What in it or in your life has convinced you that the bible is the word of god? What are your feelings on the historical facts of bible creation (in terms of the modern "King James version" of the bible)? Do you follow the king james or do you pursue broader christian cannon? Just trying to figure out where you're coming from, no offense meant and I hope none is taken. Peace and good blessings brother.
steve1633
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:05 pm

Unread postby CWNelson79 » Wed May 21, 2008 9:01 am

I choose to see the bible as the word of God because it is. Ofocurse a non saved person would not understand this faith. But further then that i believe historical, scientific, archeological evidence to back it up as a such.


I believe that the bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God. The translations you talk about like KJV for instance may have little minor issues, but nothing major to speak of. The bible is very accurate.
"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?"
Gal. 4:16
User avatar
CWNelson79
Media pundit
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 1:51 am

Unread postby Topher » Wed May 21, 2008 12:54 pm

Weapons--

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I thought I had responded, but apparently my response didn't take.

I wasn't so concerned about CW's quotes as I was about his habit of just taking the arguments of other websites and posting them here in response. You, on the other hand, seem to put a lot more thought into yours. :D

I think Hitler's actual religious beliefs will never be known, since he said and did so many contradictory things. How about if we just agree that he's neither an atheist or a Christian and be done with it?

I do think that the "secular progressive" group you oppose is a phantom enemy. I have yet to find someone who calls themselves a SP, and I'm pretty sure I only fit half of the term (I have no interest in reforming the government to help people, so I'd be more of a "secular radical" if anything). It seems like SP is a catch-all for anyone who opposes any part of the conservative Republican agenda, when in fact it's really a bunch of disparate groups who only have the ire of the Republicans in common.

As such, anyone who appears to do things contrary to the Republican standards looks like an SP, if that's what you expect to find. I'd argue that most people who fit the SP profile seek to place people before God, while Hitler wanted to place himself before God. A subtle difference, to be sure, but the difference between good and evil.

Topehr
Topher Kersting
User avatar
Topher
Media pundit
 
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA

Unread postby Jim Rutledge » Wed May 21, 2008 7:15 pm

CWNelson79 wrote:Materialistic atheism is one of the easiest worldviews to refute.


O.K. What about "Non-Materialistic Atheism"? Care to refute that?

Jim Rutledge
Jim Rutledge
Media pundit
 
Posts: 566
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:28 pm

Unread postby CWNelson79 » Wed May 21, 2008 10:17 pm

give me an example of non materilistic atheism or one such atheist.
"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?"
Gal. 4:16
User avatar
CWNelson79
Media pundit
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 1:51 am

PreviousNext

Return to Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right: How One Side Lost Its Mind and the Other Lost Its Nerve

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron