Hitler was a Christian, Stalin was an atheist

[toddaa]

Arguments over what religious or philosophical persuasion a murderous fuckhead belonged to prove nothing apart from the fact that assholes come in all shapes and sizes.

Some Christians are nice people. Like Dorothy Day.
Some Christians are murderous fucks. Like Adolph Hitler.

Some atheists are nice people. Like Carl Sagan.
Some atheists are murderous fucks. Like Josef Stalin.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. That's right

look at the individuals and how they've lived their lives, and just stick to that--the labels of religion, politics, etc, are just that: labels.

[YOY]

2. Actually Hitler was working on creating his own religion through the Thule society

Sort of a pagan (although comparing it to the Wiccans is like calling a wolf a lamb) movement based on historical revisionism and an invented mythology to support the idea of a master race.

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

and Stalin build a cult of personality worshiping him and dwarfing Lenin's worship.

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

and yeah, they were both a couple of murderous fucks.

[leveymg]

3. Hitler and the Nazi Movement were pagan revivalists

and believers in occult origins with some trappings of Christianity.

They were a threat to the mainstream Christian Churches, and actively persecuted Catholics and Protestants who opposed Nazi power and policies. You should rent the movie, "Bonhhoeffer", which tells the story of a liberal German theologian who was executed for his work against the Nazis. See, http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/bonhoeffer/general.htm

You're right, however, about there being good and bad Christians and atheists. On edit - Hitler and Stalin were both most certainly evil F*ckers.

[Taverner]

6. Only in the later years..

Early on (the twenties and thirties) Hitler was a "DEVOUT CHRISTIAN"

It wasn't until the 1940's that Hitler admitted that he saw himself as god

[leveymg]

22. Rent "The Occult History of the Third Reich"

The Thule Society were there at the very beginnings of the Nazi Party. The Thule Society predated the Nazis. Better, read the book, The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and Their Influence on Nazi Ideology by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke

The actual persecution of Christian Churches obviously didn't happen until after the Nazis took power in 1933, and that didn't happen all at once or in a blanket fashion. Many of the German Protestant Churches were coopted to some degree by the Party. There was an accomodation reached with the Catholic Church in Rome in the late 1930s that prevented an actual pogrom.

[beam me up scottie]

13. From the Jewish Virtual Library: Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust:

Cries for Help

Throughout the Holocaust, Pius XII was consistently besieged with pleas for help on behalf of the Jews.

In the spring of 1940, the Chief Rabbi of Palestine, Isaac Herzog, asked the papal Secretary of State, Cardinal Luigi Maglione to intercede to keep Jews in Spain from being deported to Germany. He later made a similar request for Jews in Lithuania. The papacy did nothing.(5)

Within the Pope's own church, Cardinal Theodor Innitzer of Vienna told Pius XII about Jewish deportations in 1941. In 1942, the Slovakian charge d'affaires, a position under the supervision of the Pope, reported to Rome that Slovakian Jews were being systematically deported and sent to death camps.(6)

In October 1941, the Assistant Chief of the U.S. delegation to the Vatican, Harold Tittman, asked the Pope to condemn the atrocities. The response came that the Holy See wanted to remain "neutral," and that condemning the atrocities would have a negative influence on Catholics in German-held lands.(7)

In late August 1942, after more than 200,000 Ukrainian Jews had been killed, Ukrainian Metropolitan Andrej Septyckyj wrote a long letter to the Pope, referring to the German government as a regime of terror and corruption, more diabolical than that of the Bolsheviks. The Pope replied by quoting verses from Psalms and advising Septyckyj to "bear adversity with serene patience."(8)

On September 18, 1942, Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini, the future Pope Paul VI, wrote, "The massacres of the Jews reach frightening proportions and forms."(9) Yet, that same month when Myron Taylor, U.S. representative to the Vatican, warned the Pope that his silence was endangering his moral prestige, the Secretary of State responded on the Pope's behalf that it was impossible to verify rumors about crimes committed against the Jews.(10)

Wladislaw Raczkiewicz, president of the Polish government-in-exile, appealed to the Pope in January 1943 to publicly denounce Nazi violence. Bishop Preysing of Berlin did the same, at least twice. Pius XII refused.(11)
Papal Reasons and Responses

The Pope finally gave a reason for his consistent refusals to make a public statement in December 1942. The Allied governments issued a declaration, "German Policy of Extermination of the Jewish Race," which stated that there would be retribution for the perpetrators of Jewish murders. When Tittman asked Secretary of State Maglione if the Pope could issue a similar proclamation, Maglione said the papacy was "unable to denounce publicly particular atrocities."(12) One reason for this position was that the staunchly anti-communist Pope felt he could not denounce the Nazis without including the Communists; therefore, Pius XII would only condemn general atrocities.(13)

The Pope did speak generally against the extermination campaign. On January 18, 1940, after the death toll of Polish civilians was estimated at 15,000, the Pope said in a broadcast, "The horror and inexcusable excesses committed on a helpless and a homeless people have been established by the unimpeachable testimony of eye-witnesses."(14) During his Christmas Eve radio broadcast in 1942, he referred to the "hundreds of thousands who through no fault of their own, and solely because of their nation or race, have been condemned to death or progressive extinction."(15) The Pope never mentioned the Jews by name.

The Pope's indifference to the mistreatment of Jews was often clear. In 1941, for example, after being asked by French Marshal Henri Philippe Petain if the Vatican would object to anti-Jewish laws, Pius XII answered that the church condemned racism, but did not repudiate every rule against the Jews.(16) When Petain's French puppet government introduced "Jewish statutes," the Vichy ambassador to the Holy See informed Petain that the Vatican did not consider the legislation in conflict with Catholic teachings, as long as they were carried out with "charity" and "justice."(17)

In a September 1940 broadcast, the Vatican called its policy "neutrality," but stated in the same broadcast that where morality was involved, no neutrality was possible.(18) This could only imply that mass murder was not a moral issue.

On September 8, 1943, the Nazis invaded Italy and, suddenly, the Vatican was the local authority. The Nazis gave the Jews 36 hours to come up with 50 kilograms of gold or else the Nazis would take 300 hostages. The Vatican was willing to loan 15 kilos, an offer that eventually proved unnecessary when the Jews obtained an extension for the delivery.(19)

Pius XII knew that Jewish deportations from Italy were impending. The Vatican even found out from SS First Lieutenant Kurt Gerstein the fate of those who were to be deported.(20) Publicly, the Pope stayed silent. Privately, Pius did instruct Catholic institutions to take in Jews. The Vatican itself hid 477 Jews and another 4,238 Jews were protected in Roman monasteries and convents.(21)

On October 16, the Nazis arrested 1,007 Roman Jews, the majority of whom were women and children. They were taken to Auschwitz, where 811 were gassed immediately. Of those sent to the concentration camp, 16 survived.(22)

*****

Conclusion

The Pope's reaction to the Holocaust was complex and inconsistent. At times, he tried to help the Jews and was successful. But these successes only highlight the amount of influence he might have had, if he not chosen to remain silent on so many other occasions. No one knows for sure the motives behind Pius XII's actions, or lack thereof, since the Vatican archives have only been fully opened to select researchers. Historians offer many reasons why Pope Pius XII was not a stronger public advocate for the Jews: A fear of Nazi reprisals, a feeling that public speech would have no effect and might harm the Jews, the idea that private intervention could accomplish more, the anxiety that acting against the German government could provoke a schism among German Catholics, the church's traditional role of being politically neutral and the fear of the growth of communism were the Nazis to be defeated.(33) Whatever his motivation, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the Pope, like so many others in positions of power and influence, could have done more to save the Jews.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html

Liliana Picciotto Fargion. Il Libro della Memoria. Gli Ebrei deportati dall'Italia (1943-1945). Milan: Mursia, 1991.




This meticulously and painstakingly researched work reconstructs the deportation of Italian Jewry to the German death camps. Out of a Jewish population that by 1943 had been reduced by emigration to slightly over 40,000 (of whom 6,500 were foreigners), 6,746 were deported from Italy proper, and another 1,820 from the Dodecanese, Italian possessions in the Aegean. An additional 303 Jews were killed on Italian soil. Identities of at least 900-1,100 other victims have not been established.

The present work lists in precise demographic detail the names of the known deceased together with the date and place of each arrest, initial place of incarceration, date of departure for Auschwitz, convoy number (forty-four trains set out from Italy), date of debarkation at the camp (the journey took about five days), and date of execution. For most, this was the same day as arrival.

The cover photo shows two-year-old Fiorella Anticoli, seized with her entire family in the infamous roundup of almost 1,300 Roman Jews on 16 October 1943. The arrests were carried out by units of the S.S. specially trained for such "actions" and sent to the Italian capital for the purpose. Working under the very walls of the Vatican, the operation had to be carried out as efficiently and with as little tumult and commotion as possible.

http://www.library.wisc.edu/libraries/dpf/Fascism/Images/FRY63.html

[leveymg]

23. You should read Cornwell's "Hitler's Pope"

Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII by John Cornwell.

Damning. But, the book makes it clear that the Nazis had issued an ultimatum to Rome that held German Catholics hostage - go along with the Holocaust, or you're next. This doesn't excuse Pius -- who was a known anti-semite when he was installed in 1939 (he had been the Vatican Ambassador to Germany) -- or the Church hierarchy who elected him, but it helps explain what occurred.

[beam me up scottie]

24. There is no excuse for aiding the Nazis.

Not when so many died trying to stop them.

[leveymg]

25. Agreed. Pius XII was a collaborator and sympathizer.

He had long and deep ties to Germany, and was selected at Rome for precisely that reason at about the same time that Mussolini formally embraced Hitler in the Axis pact.

The Catholic Church was also under great pressure from the Italian Government, which was trying to seize the Vatican's remaining assets (the Vatican bought up gold a $35/oz for years before moving it to the Morgan Bank vaults in NY in 1939). The Church (and Wall Street) had at first been friendly to Mussolini, viewing the Fascists as a preferred alternative to the Communists. That relationship deteriorated as war approached.

[beam me up scottie]

26. You should hang around here more often.

Every so often someone starts a thread praising the Vatican for their bravery and moral guidance in WWII.

Some are victims of the historical revisionists and some choose to ignore the evidence.

[leveymg]

27. I just want to be fair, and hope I'm accurate.

I think the Catholic Church does a great deal of good in the world today.

WW2 and the period leading up and immediately following was not the Vatican's finest hour.

[beam me up scottie]

28. Their policies are still killing people.

There are millions of people who have AIDS already and millions more who will contract the disease thanks to the Vatican's policies regarding condoms.

They instruct their priests to teach people that condoms actually spread the disease instead of preventing it.

That makes them murderers in my eyes. :mad:

[leveymg]

29. Where did you read that about the condoms?

Spreading AIDS rather than preventing it, I mean.

[NMMNG]

33. "Where did you read that about the condoms?"

Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids

The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.
The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV.

A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms, despite assurances by the World Health Organisation that they are untrue.

<snip>

The organisation says "consistent and correct" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%. There may be breakage or slippage of condoms - but not, the WHO says, holes through which the virus can pass .

<snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html


They are liars pushing an agenda that serves only to sicken and kill people.

[beam me up scottie]

34. oops, thanks! I forgot about that.

I was digging through my old posts last night to get the references and got sucked into the black hole that is GD.

[NMMNG]

35. De Nada

Google is my friend.

[cosmik debris]

4. Here we go again.

I wish we had a limit of one Hitler thread per week. :shrug:

[toddaa]

7. I was kinda hoping to stop it.

Why do people get all bent out of shape over the fact that Hitler was a Christian? He was also German and drove a Volkswagon. Are all Germans and Volkswagon drivers Nazis? Of course not.

[cosmik debris]

9. The way to stop it is to stop posting Hitler threads.

I already regret my limited participation in this thread and I will not participate further. It won't stop it, but I won't encourage it either.

[Journeyman]

12. Hitler was chauffered in a Mercedes . . .

he directed the development of the Peoples Car to both provide inexpensive, mass transport, and as a measure to conserve national fuel supplies. He was the first national leader to advocate both these ideas. He was also the first national leader to advocate development of a national highway system, the Autobahn. Again, to improve transportation and to conserve fuel through optimizing driving conditions. There were ulterior motives, as well, but then, that's somewhat how he used religion, too. . .

[Igel]

15. Many get bent out of shape when the USSR is

described as communist or socialist; they argue that the USSR's 'socialism' surely wasn't *their* socialism. The USSR was a country that practiced atheism; if that's the extent of the description, and there's no context saying that the description is limited or otherwise motivated, then people reasonably infer there's something about atheism that accounts for many of the USSR's traits.

The implication ("implicature" is better here) is that if you're using a word to attribute a characteristic to a person then the usual definition of the word applies, that the person reasonably examplifies that attribute, and that the attribute is somehow relevant to the greater discourse.

The usual response when the 9/11 folks or bin Ladin/Zawahri are described as Muslims is to affirm something about Islam such that they can't be considered typical. This gets taken to the point that "Islamic terror" is nearly forbidden; "Islamist terror" is ok, but barely. If they're typical Muslims, then it has implications for at least a majority of Muslims.

When Hitler's described as Xian--and he surely was at some point before he produced his own syncretic blend of Norse/Germanic mythology, self-devised fiction, and Xianity--frequently the implication is that one more crime should be chalked up to Xianity.

[beam me up scottie]

17. No True Scotsman fallacy.

from skepticwiki:

No True Scotsman

Definition

No True Scotsman is a type of logical fallacy in which the arguer claims that elements of class X have a property, and, when presented with a counter example Y, asserts that Y therefore does not belong to class X.

The argument is a fallacy since it redefines the class as needed to suit the argument. In doing so, it can make any claim at all vacuously true under the new definition.


Examples

Antagonist: "Because Christians fear God, they will act more ethically."
Protagonist: "But Jim Bakker wasn't acting ethically when he stole millions from his church."
Antagonist: "Yes, well, Jim Bakker seemed to be a Christian, but apparently, deep in his heart he was not."



Discussion

The rather unusual name no true Scotsman was coined by Antony Flew in his book Thinking about Thinking — or do I sincerely want to be right?, as follows:


'Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Press and Journal and seeing an article about how the ‘Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again’. Hamish is shocked and declares that “No Scotsman would do such a thing”. The next day he sits down to read his Press and Journal again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, “No true Scotsman would do such a thing”.'



Exceptions to the Rule

When the amendment to the definition is actually a necessary condition for membership in the class, this type of argument is not a fallacy. For example:
Antagonist: "A vegetarian would never eat meat."
Protagonist: "But my friend Avinder eats hamburgers all the time."
Antagonist: "I wouldn't exactly call Avinder a vegetarian then."

This is not a fallacy since "not eating hamburgers", while not an explicit requirement of being a vegetarian, is a necessary condition. On the other hand, in the "Christian" example given above, "acting ethically" has not been established as a necessary condition of "being Christian"; in fact, this is the very matter under debate.

[Igel]

31. Now, it's more than that.

I think that Hitler's version of Christianity is a bad match for the standard definitions. But I won't quibble about that.

The NTS fallacy takes a term's definition and narrows it to exclude a referent that the term properly applies to. The fallacy is in tacitly tinkering with definitions. But in the exchange "Hitler was a Christian"; "Hitler wasn't a *true* Christian", the second sentence is rebutting a fallacy. It's not the NTS fallacy, but it's akin to it. It's also not an easy fallacy to explain.

There are a few principles for construing what somebody else says, at least in American English. We assume a speaker is truthful; we assume that what they say is relevant; we assume they say everything they know that's relevant and construe meanings as broadly as we can. There are others. Obviously, their application varies by context. Americans know, and manipulate, these principles to their own ends. We feel cheated when we find out. If we distrust or dislike a person, we assume they will *not* follow these rules (which creates an entirely different set of problems).

Now, utterances frequently contain presuppositions. "Yesterday I drove to the store" has the presupposition that I have a car; "Do you still beat your wife?" presupposes you at least *used* to beat your wife. For a first pass, anything in a sentence that can't be simply negated is a presupposition. "No, I didn't drive" doesn't mean you don't have a car; "No, I don't still beat my wife" doesn't cut it. Presuppositions are dangerous. Demagogues love them. Pretty much you assume that a presupposition is true if a sentence or question requires that it be true, and reversing that assumption doesn't always happen.

Now let's look at "Hitler was Christian," i.e., an adherent of Christianity. If you're talking about the genocidal Nordic supremacist in most contexts, then the implicature yielded by relevance is that somehow Christianity (not "Hitler's Christianity") led to his acts, and (Hitler's) Christianity was the evil faith of a genocidal Nordic supremacist--or, at the very least, compatible with it. Since we go for the broadest construal possible, we don't necessarily construe it as "Hitler's Christianity", but "Christianity". And there's the first step in the fallacy: We've just implicitly defined a term narrowly, presupposed that Hitler was an typical adherent of a religion that is a prototypical referent for "Christianity"; in actuality, he was an atypical adherent of an aberrant version of Xianity. The next step is implied: That the definition of Christian derived from his conduct is applicable to all people that the word "Christian" is applied to. All Christians are like Hitler, or would be if they were "true Christians".

This has the clearest effect when a person is a self-identified Xian, and the fallacy leads to a clear inconsistency. Having shifted the meaning of Xianity, they themselves don't meet the new definition. Since the term properly applies to them, the immediate response is either to deny the presupposition or deny the basis for the presupposition. The latter is much easier: "Hitler wasn't a (true) Christian." If there's no clear inconsistency, you're left with the fallacy: Hitler was a Xian like any other. I don't think this is really the NTS fallacy--it just looks like it, but it's really intended to deny a presupposition and they're neither sure of the presupposition or how to go about it. In other words, I suspect that "Hitler's not a Christian" is just a "no" with enough contextual material around it to make it a reasonable utterance. "Hitler was a Christian"; "No." That doesn't do.

While the NTS inappropriately narrows a definition to avoid attributing a property to a person that actually possesses that property, this fallacy narrows a definition and then leads us to believe that the narrowed definition is, in fact, the common and general definition, so that we attribute a property to a referent that doesn't actually possess that property. Both play nasty semantic games; the "Hitler was a Xian" is nastier because it's implicit and harder to properly object to.

When faced with "Hitler was a Christian", there are some proper responses. I think my favorite challenges the "like any others" part of the presupposition, and follows it up with a request to show relevance: "Martin Luther King was a Christian. Jimmy Carter was a Christian. Pope John Paul II was a Christian. You say Hitler was a Christian. I'd like to know that we're actually communicating clearly. Please point out the shared meaning of the term 'Christian' as exemplified by MLK, Carter, John Paul II, and Hitler, that is, what their beliefs have in common. And then make clear exactly how that shared meaning and those shared beliefs are relevant and meaningful in this context."

Of course, that'd just get me put on 'ignore'.

[beam me up scottie]

32. No, actually, it's not.

I'm not making the claim that he was, without a doubt, christian.

I'm refuting the claims of christians who make the absolute declaration that Hitler wasn't a christian with nothing more than the NTSF to back it up.

And again, Hitler was the one who said he was a christian, they need to prove him wrong, not me.

Some would love nothing more than to redefine christianity in order to disown every villain who wore the cross in the past two thousand years.

Who are the "real" christians?:

* To conservative Protestants, a Christian is often defined according to their salvation status. Their definition is "true" to them, because it agrees with some of their foundational beliefs: that the Bible is inerrant, that salvation is by grace, and that one must be "born-again" to be saved and avoid eternal punishment in Hell.

* To Roman Catholics, a Christian is often defined according to their baptism status. Their definition is "true" to them, because it agrees with their fundamental beliefs, including their understanding of the Bible, the declarations of many Church Councils, the statements of many popes, and their church's tradition.

* To many in the very early Christian movement, a Christian was defined as a person who was baptized and proclaimed "Jesus is Lord." Their definition was "true" to them because it agreed with their understanding of their religious belief at a time when the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) had not yet been written and assembled.

And so on, with the remaining definitions.

***
So there is not a single version of Christianity; there are literally thousands. Many of these faith groups believe that they alone are following Jesus' teachings; they are the "true" church. The Roman Catholic Church issued a formal statement to that effect in 2000-SEP. Although many ecumenical efforts are active today, the Christian religion remains split into thousands of denominations -- in essence thousands of varieties of Christians.

*from religioustolerance.org

[Donald Ian Rankin]

30. Because it's deeply misleading to say that he was.

Hitler's views on religion certainly contained a great many elements of Christianity, and one could certainly make a case that he self-identified as Christian (although one could also make a case that he didn't), but there was so much other stuff in there too that saying "he was a Christian" isn't really accurate; it's something one would only do to make a point.

[jobycom]

10. No limiting posting on anything, even Hitler. nt.

[stopbush]

20. DU threads on Hitler seem to coincide with History Channel airing some show.

Today, THC is showing a show about the final days in the bunker. Ergo, the Hitler thread.

[Old and In the Way]

5. I think you have distilled the essential argument to the core points.

You must be right, cuz this will piss everyone off! :-)

[toddaa]

8. Why else post to R/T

If I don't piss everyone off, I get very sad.

[beam me up scottie]

11. Oh, but Stalin wasn't a Real Atheist.

:rofl:

[China_cat]

16. He was a real atheist

who studied originally to be an Orthodx priest. When he found out his family didn't have the money to buy him into a position of power in the church, he left the seminary.

What most people have problems with is that they say 'Stalin was an atheist and just look at the horrors he committed'. But he didn't commit those horrors in the name of atheism. He committed them in the name of the state.

[beam me up scottie]

18. Um, I was parroting the "Real Christians."

Sorry, forgot the sarcasm smilie. :)

[China_cat]

19. Yes, I know.

I was just giving you some ammunition for those who like to ambush you with 'well, I suppose you'd say Stalin wasn't really an atheist'.

[beam me up scottie]

21. Got it!

:D

[NMMNG]

36. We all know that

What most people have problems with is that they say 'Stalin was an atheist and just look at the horrors he committed'. But he didn't commit those horrors in the name of atheism. He committed them in the name of the state.

Unfortunately some can't seem to understand the difference.

[David__77]

14. If Stalin was a communist, Hitler was a Christian.

Are we to take them at their word. TO say "Stalin wasn't a real communist" or "Hitler wasn't a real Christian" is disingenuous. They took those ideologies, at least nominally, as a core of their political line.

[cain_7777]

37. Atheist myths

Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.

People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/10-myths-and-10-truths-about-atheism1