Why Religion Fails

[canada-man]

all of the quotes all say Hitler and his Nazism were christian based. Hitler in his Mein Kampf wrote about his christian beliefs

 

[Mervyn]

It's the fact humans are involved that are the problem.

And they'll cause problems eventually regardless of religion (or lack thereof)

 

[rld]

all of the quotes all say Hitler and his Nazism were christian based. Hitler in his Mein Kampf wrote about his christian beliefs

Sure and Hitler gave speeches about how nobody in Germany had been persecuted for their religion or would ever be. His public propaganda statements were just that.

Now you could turn to Oxford University Press' Table talks to see what he actually said about religion when not speaking in public:

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)

Next you are going to claim that Stalin was Christian because he once trained to be a priest...

 

[someone]

Actually, as late as 1943 Hitler publically said he was a catholic. Moreover, he was the God Father to many of the children of senior Nazis (God father in the catholic sense, not the metaphoric sense of the term). BTW, if the Germans were trying to promote atheism during the war, their military belt buckles were a strange things to be wearing (do a search if you don't know what I am refering to). Someone would have a hard time arguing that religion (or lack of religion) had much to do with motovations in WW2, other than prehaps contributing to Antisemitism (Antisemitism did not come from nowhere). Likewise, you might argue that Japan's empiror worship (e.g. the belief he was a living god) helped get public support for their war effort but I think that would be a secondary factor.

 

[canada-man]

http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm

Hitler's Table Talk

Those who deny Hitler as a Christian will invariably find the recorded table talk conversations of Hitler from 1941 to 1944 as incontrovertible evidence that he could not have been a Christian. The source usually comes from the English translation (from a French translation) edition by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens, with an introduction by H.R. Trevor-Roper.

The table-talk has Hitler saying such things such as: "I shall never come to terms with the Christian lie. . .", "Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity".

The problem with these anti-Christian quotes is that the German text of the table-talk does not include them, they were made up by François Genoud, the translator of the French version, the very version that English translations rely on! (More on this below).

Even if you believed the table-talk included the anti-Christian quotes, nowhere in the talk does Hitler speak against Jesus or his own brand of Christianity. On the contrary, the table-talk has Hitler speaking admirably about Jesus. Hitler did, of course criticize organized religion in a political sense (as do many Christians today), but never in a religious sense. But the problems with using Hitler's table talk conversations as evidence for Hitler's apostasy are manyfold:

1) The reliability of the source (hearsay and editing by the anti-Catholic, Bormann)

2) The reliability of multiple translations, from German to French to English.

3) The bias of the translators (especially Genoud).

4) The table-talk reflects thoughts that do not occur in Hitler's other private or public conversations.

5) Nowhere does Hitler denounce Jesus or his own brand of Christianity.

6) The "anti-Christian" portions of Table-Talk does not concur with Hitler's actions for "positive" Christianity.



The table talk reflects thoughts that do not occur in Hitler's other private or public conversations

If Hitler actually desired to eliminate personal Christianity, then why do we not find it in his other private dialogs and conversations? Why do we not find it in any of his public speeches or interviews?

In the Secret Conversations with Hitler, two recently discovered confidential interviews were given by Richard Breiting in 1931. Breiting was a member of the German People's Party. In these conversations, (which were actually more private than the Table-Talk), Hitler reveals his aims and plans. Like the Table-Talk, the notes were taken in short-hand. Unlike the Table-Talk, which Hitler knew would later be revealed, Hitler was assured that his statements would be kept secret. [Calic, p.11] Moreover, the Secret Conversations were authenticated as written solely by Breiting (unlike the editing by Bormann). Yet nowhere in these conversations does Hitler denounce religion. On the contrary, Hitler mentions a conciliation with Roman and German Catholicism where "people like von Papen and many others are establishing good relations with the Vatican."

In Hitler-- Memoirs of a Confidant, Hitler reveals himself through conversation to colleagues from a conference on economic policy. In it Hitler is reported to have spoken, glowingly, about raising the "treasures of the living Christ," "the persecution of the true Christians and sanctimonious churches that have placed themselves between God and man and to turn away from the anti-Christian , smug individualism of the past," and "to 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 of you is not alone a creature of God, but that you are all brothers!" [Turner, Ch. 23]

Nowhere in the Memoirs do we find a Bormann-like anti-Christian statements as found in the Table-Talk.

 

[canada-man]

Actually, as late as 1943 Hitler publically said he was a catholic. Moreover, he was the God Father to many of the children of senior Nazis (God father in the catholic sense, not the metaphoric sense of the term). BTW, if the Germans were trying to promote atheism during the war, their military belt buckles were a strange things to be wearing (do a search if you don't know what I am refering to).

Gott Mit Uns (God With Us) Nazi Buckle

Enlisted Man's German Army belt buckle (Stamped steel, 1937 pattern, made by "R S & S" for Richard Sieper & Sohne Ludenscheid). Photo from the German Militaria Catalog (their web site no longer exists).

Also see "Guarding the Führer: Sepp Dietrich, Johann Rattenhuber and the Protection of Adolf Hitler," Blaine Tayler, 1993, p. 165

 

[rld]

http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm

Clearly, Oxford University Press was fooled while some random internet athiest has solved the problem. What a surprise.

 

[rld]

Gott Mit Uns (God With Us) Nazi Buckle

Enlisted Man's German Army belt buckle (Stamped steel, 1937 pattern, made by "R S & S" for Richard Sieper & Sohne Ludenscheid). Photo from the German Militaria Catalog (their web site no longer exists).

Also see "Guarding the Führer: Sepp Dietrich, Johann Rattenhuber and the Protection of Adolf Hitler," Blaine Tayler, 1993, p. 165

It is perverse to call it a "Nazi" buckle. It was the buckle of the Wehrmacht or regular army. I own a few of those.

It might be fair to call the SS belt buckle a Nazi buckle...which of course said Meine Ehre heißt Treue, no mention of God. I own a few of those too.

The Gott Mitt Uns slogan goes back hundreds of years in Prussian military history.

 

[someone]

It is perverse to call it a "Nazi" buckle. It was the buckle of the Wehrmacht or regular army. I own a few of those.

It might be fair to call the SS belt buckle a Nazi buckle...which of course said Meine Ehre heißt Treue, no mention of God. I own a few of those too.

The Gott Mitt Uns slogan goes back hundreds of years in Prussian military history.

You miss the point. Clearly if the war was about atheism, they would not have still been waging it wearing that belt buckle.

 

[rld]

You miss the point. Clearly if the war was about atheism, they would not have still been waging it wearing that belt buckle.

I don't think I missed the point, but allow me to try and make mine better.

What the war was about is a very complicated question. What the war was about for Hitler and high ranking Nazis and what the war was about for the typical trooper were two very different things.

Nazism held to anti-christian tenants and tried at various times to break the Christian churches. The rallying cry for the resistance movement in Austria was "Jesus ist mein Fuhrer". Hitler, as shown above, was anti-Christian.

But in Germany, the military structure and the vast majority of the office corps were not really Nazis and they were stepped in the Prussian tradition. They were the folks who chose the belt buckle, and its history stretches back to WWI, long before Nazism existed. There were many conflicts on many levels between the traditional German officer class and the Nazi party politicians who were running the country. That is why Hitler created the SS, to become his politicized army.

Hitler was also a pragmatist. He knew that he simply could not strike down the christian churches despite his desire (and long term plans) to do so. As proven by the Speer quote above, Hitler directed some people to remain on the Catholic books despite their complete lack of belief. It was the practical thing to do to achieve their ends.

 

[someone]

I don't think I missed the point, but allow me to try and make mine better.

What the war was about is a very complicated question. What the war was about for Hitler and high ranking Nazis and what the war was about for the typical trooper were two very different things.

Nazism held to anti-christian tenants and tried at various times to break the Christian churches. The rallying cry for the resistance movement in Austria was "Jesus ist mein Fuhrer". Hitler, as shown above, was anti-Christian.

But in Germany, the military structure and the vast majority of the office corps were not really Nazis and they were stepped in the Prussian tradition. They were the folks who chose the belt buckle, and its history stretches back to WWI, long before Nazism existed. There were many conflicts on many levels between the traditional German officer class and the Nazi party politicians who were running the country. That is why Hitler created the SS, to become his politicized army.

Hitler was also a pragmatist. He knew that he simply could not strike down the christian churches despite his desire (and long term plans) to do so. As proven by the Speer quote above, Hitler directed some people to remain on the Catholic books despite their complete lack of belief. It was the practical thing to do to achieve their ends.

I think your reading of the history is a bit off. First, your argument is that Hitler needed people to believe he was Christian. That alone argues against your position that the war had something to do with atheism. It also ignores the Christian roots of anti-Semitism. As late as the 1960s, the Catholic Church still calmed that Jews had collective responsibility for the death of Christ. It is hardly surprising that Hitler got his strongest support in Catholic areas of Germany.
You also argue about unverifiable statements of what he said in private (one quoted by a senior person in his leadership who claimed not to know about the death camps even though he was directly responsible for millions of slave labourers, many of whom were worked to death). However, as they don’t reflect the reasons for the war, I have ignored them.

 

[rld]

I think you are confused here. First, your argument is that Hitler needed people to believe he was Christian. That alone argues against your position that the war had something to do with atheism. It also ignores the Christian roots of anti-Semitism. As late as the 1960s, the Catholic Church still calmed that Jews had collective responsibility for the death of Christ. It is hardly surprising that Hitler got his strongest support in Catholic areas of Germany.
You also argue about unverifiable statements of what he said in private (one quoted by a senior person in his leadership who claimed not to know about the death camps even though he was directly responsible for millions of slave labourers, many of whom were worked to death). However, as they don’t reflect the reasons for the war, I have ignored them.

The Speer quote was from Canada Boy are you suggesting we discount it?

The Table Talks are considered very solid and are used by elite historians around the world. Are you suggesting they are wrong?

Your comments on the support of Catholics just seems factually wrong:

Although Hitler's political career began in Munich, in the elections of 1928 to November 1932 the NSDAP won a higher share of the vote in Protestant than in Catholic Germany. In the Catholic Rhineland and Bavaria (apart from Protestant Franconia) it polled disproportionately badly. In fact in July 1932 the Nazi share of the vote was almost twice as high in Protestant as in Catholic areas. The inability, of Nazis to attract the Catholic vote was demonstrated by the stable support for the Catholic Centre Party, which regularly gained between 11.8 and 12.5 per cent between 1928, and November 1932; and by that of its sister confessional party, the Bavarian People's Party (BVP), which stayed firm at around 3 per cent in those same elections.
In some places, of course, the NSDAP mobilised Catholic voters on a significant scale, as happened in Breslau and Liegnitz (towns in Silesia where conflicts between Germans and Poles coloured political identity), in the Catholic rural areas of the Palatinate, and among some Catholics in the Black Forest; but these cases were atypical.
Surprisingly, the first electoral breakthroughs enjoyed by the Nazis came in Protestant rural areas, such as Schleswig-Holstein and Lower Saxony, where peasant voters had earlier registered discontent with their traditional representatives from the DNVP (German National People's Party or Nationalists). In fact this was more than a little ironical, as Nazi propaganda had initially targeted urban workers, and the Nazi agrarian programme developed in 1928 was only in response to the expansion of support in these areas. Subsequently the constituencies with the highest proportion of Nazi voters were in Protestant farming communities; and by 1932 the stream of peasant deserters to Hitler's party had become a torrent. Many rural labourers, often influenced by the estate managers, voted for the NSDAP in July 1932. Indeed, the scale of agrarian support for the party in that election suggests the Nazis were able not only to win the support of peasants and rural labourers but also that of some large landowners.

And anti-semitism was never a particularly Catholic monopoly. Just look at Lutherism, the orthodox churches...

Whether or not his comments reflected the reason for the war is irrelevant. Canada Boy has chosen to argue that religion is the main cause for trouble in the world. I counter this by showing an athiest...like Hitler can and more importantly has, caused at least as much trouble in the world as any religious leader.

And Hitler's rantings also show that an athiest can also be an anti-semite. In the same sense that Canada Boy chooses to be hostile to religion.

And course there is still no answer for Stalin or Mao or the Khmer Rouge...

 

[Mervyn]

Stalin was an athiest..

 

[someone]

The Speer quote was from Canada Boy are you suggesting we discount it?

I am always suspicious of direct quotations from private conversations. You should see some of the things people have claimed I have said. I admit that I thought you were referring to a quotation in one of your own posts. Given how many posts Canada boy has made in the politics forum that I completely disagree with, I would not have bothered to respond.

Your comments on the support of Catholics just seems factually wrong:

That is not what I have read. However, as I don’t want to get sources right now, I will drop this point for now. I could be wrong.

And anti-semitism was never a particularly Catholic monopoly. Just look at Lutherism, the orthodox churches...

I don’t disagree that bigotry is common to different religions.

Whether or not his comments reflected the reason for the war is irrelevant. Canada Boy has chosen to argue that religion is the main cause for trouble in the world. I counter this by showing an athiest...like Hitler can and more importantly has, caused at least as much trouble in the world as any religious leader.

And Hitler's rantings also show that an athiest can also be an anti-semite. In the same sense that Canada Boy chooses to be hostile to religion.

And course there is still no answer for Stalin or Mao or the Khmer Rouge...

You have not shown any real evidence that Hitler was an atheist. You would have a better argument if you stuck with Stalin. However, in that case communism shared a lot of characteristics of athism in terms of having a core set of beliefs that cannot be questioned. Nonetheless, you miss the point. Many wars have been fought over religion. You would have a hard time find a war for which religion was a motivation factor.

BTW, plenty of Catholics criticise their own religion. That does not mean they don't believe in mythical beings and forces.

 

[rld]

You have not shown any real evidence that Hitler was an atheist. You would have a better argument if you stuck with Stalin. However, in that case communism shared a lot of characteristics of athism in terms of having a core set of beliefs that cannot be questioned. Nonetheless, you miss the point. Many wars have been fought over religion. You would have a hard time find a war for which religion was a motivation factor. Plenty of Catholics criticise their own religion.

Do you mean "I would have a hard time finding a war for which religion was not a motivating factor?"

You would be right, but the argument would be circular, or nearly so. For the vast majority of human history religion has been the dominant force of politics and culture. There is no similar period or place we can study where there was large numbers of people living without religion to compare it to.

But what we can say with confidence, is that the 20th Century, perhaps the least religious time in the historic period has been as bloody as any or perhaps moreso. If you like a numbers game, the period in which religiousity has been declining has had terrible wars.

WWI also qualifies. While almost everyone who fought in it may have been religious, the causes and motivations were not.

And since Hitler was clear in his statements that he hated religion and believed in the natural order what else do we call him other than athiest?

 

[Mervyn]

How bout this..

Putting aside Hitler's own beliefs just for the moment.. can everyone agree he USED religion ?

 

[someone]

Do you mean "I would have a hard time finding a war for which religion was not a motivating factor?"

Thanks for the correction

You would be right, but the argument would be circular, or nearly so. For the vast majority of human history religion has been the dominant force of politics and culture. There is no similar period or place we can study where there was large numbers of people living without religion to compare it to.

You have a point here. Chinese history might be a partial exception. However, you have a point.

But what we can say with confidence, is that the 20th Century, perhaps the least religious time in the historic period has been as bloody as any or perhaps moreso. If you like a numbers game, the period in which religiousity has been declining has had terrible wars.

Actually, it has only been recently the religious beliefs in supernatural beings has declined. Likewise, with other statistics like church attendance. I suppose you could argue that after Darwin, belief in aspects of religion had declined. However, I am not sure that is the same thing. By any measure, they were more religious then we are today (except perhaps for the U.S. and I am not even sure the Americans are even an exception). Moreover, I doubt if you could find evidence that they were much less religious than in earlier time periods (admittedly it is very hard to find reliable evidence of religiosity in earlier periods).
Also, when it comes to numbers and wars, things are really unclear. Just as when in economics we measure public debt as a proportion of GDP when you look at wars, I am not sure the death rate (especially if you include disease, etc.) really went up in those wars. Thus, I am not sure by what standard you are saying the wars were more terrible than earlier wars. However, it might be an interesting question. I wonder if anyone has ever tried to come up with a good measure.

WWI also qualifies. While almost everyone who fought in it may have been religious, the causes and motivations were not.

I believe that was my point in an earlier post. I am glad that you have come around.

And since Hitler was clear in his statements that he hated religion and believed in the natural order what else do we call him other than athiest?

He also made many statements that he was religious. Not to mention his reported beliefs in mysticism. Try to find a quote that he did not believe in supernatural beings.

How bout this..

Putting aside Hitler's own beliefs just for the moment.. can everyone agree he USED religion ?

That is really the only important point.

Sorry about all the edits, I am actually in the middle of something I should be doing instead and screwed up a bit with the posting. I think I should come back when I have more time to continue this.

 

[canada-man]

 

[canada-man]

PM go and 'let the Muslims take over'

SLAMIC preacher Ibrahim Siddiq-Conlon points heavenwards to emphasise his message for the governments of Australia -- there is no God but Allah and only his laws should be obeyed.

"My attack is on the Prime Minister of Australia," he said yesterday. "I hate the parliament in Canberra. I want to go straight for the jugular vein and advise the parliament that they have no right to legislate. They should immediately step down and let the Muslims take over."

An Australian-born convert to Islam, Siddiq-Conlon is the self-anointed leader of a group called Sharia4Australia, which is pushing for the introduction of sharia courts as a first step towards achieving Islamic law.

"One day Australia will live under sharia; it's inevitable," he said. "If they (Australians) don't accept it, that's not our problem. We hope, and our objective is to have a peaceful transition, but when you look at history that has never been the case. There's always been a fight. It is inevitable that one day there will be a struggle for Islam in Australia."

A masters graduate in architecture from the University of Technology Sydney, Siddiq-Conlon formed Sharia4Australia last year. He said he had three objectives. The first is to persuade Muslims they must hate "taghoot", the worship of any God other than Allah, which includes democracy.

"They must hate it, speak out against it. And, if that doesn't work, take action against it."

His other objectives are to advise elected governments they have no authority to rule, and to educate non-Muslims on the benefits of sharia, including punishments such as stoning adulterers and severing the hands of thieves.

"If chopping off the hands is the punishment given by the sharia court then we say glad tidings, because chopping off the hands -- when you understand what is sharia -- is a mercy to that person.

"Why is it a mercy getting your hands chopped off? Because it can be expiation for your sins. It is better to get punished in this life than to go underground into the grave or into the hellfire for eternity."

Siddiq-Conlon will join a debate tonight at the Parramatta Town Hall in Sydney on the merits of sharia versus democracy. The event was organised by self-styled debate promoter Zaky Mallah, who was acquitted of terrorism charges in 2005 but pleaded guilty to threatening to kill a commonwealth officer after his passport was cancelled.

The pro-democracy case will be argued by an Australian army veteran, self-described "concerned Aussie" and senior member of the pro-gun Firearms Forum, Jack Zedee. "The issue with Mr Conlon and Sharia4Australia is they are preaching hatred. His views horrify me," Mr Zedee told The Australian.

Police and private security are expected at the debate, after both sides claimed to have received death threats. Mallah said he had tried to cancel the event but the debaters insisted on proceeding.

Siddiq-Conlon shrugs off concerns his campaign will damage the moderate Muslim community. "If it causes a backlash against the Muslims, I can't help that. This is a necessary debate."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...uslims-take-over/story-e6frg6nf-1225991362018

 

[canada-man]

Alabama Governor: Not Christian? Not my brother! CFI responds.

Shortly after being sworn in as Alabama’s newest governor, Republican Robert Bentley insulted many of his constituents by telling a church crowd that those who have not accepted Jesus as their savior are not his brothers and sisters.


In his address on Monday, Bentley spoke to a large crowd at Dexter Avenue Memorial Baptist Church in Montgomery, where the late civil rights leader Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once was pastor. In his speech he went out of his way to insult Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and nonbelievers by saying that he doesn’t consider anyone who isn’t a Christian to have a personal relationship to him.

Bentley said, in part: “I was elected as a Republican candidate. But once I became governor … I became the governor of all the people. I intend to live up to that. I am color blind. There may be some people here today who do not have living within them the Holy Spirit. But if you have been adopted in God’s family like I have, and like you have if you’re a Christian and if you’re saved, and the Holy Spirit lives within you just like the Holy Spirit lives within me, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister. Now I will have to say that, if we don’t have the same daddy, we’re not brothers and sisters. So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister, and I want to be your brother.”

CFI finds Bentley’s remarks troubling; they raise concerns about whether he can effectively and fairly govern the state of Alabama. His language makes him an advocate for Christianity and puts him in violation of the First Amendment, which requires the separation of Church and State.

Reacting to the media fallout from his speech, Bentley, a former Baptist deacon, said he did not mean to insult anyone. Some have defended him by saying that he was only expressing a desire to be a “brother” to everyone—but, of course, in the context of his speech, this meant he hoped that they would convert to Christianity.

“Bentley’s remarks vividly illustrate the dangers of mixing government and religion,” observes Ronald A. Lindsay, president & CEO of CFI. “Bentley mistakenly believes he can use his office as a pulpit to preach Christianity. However, he was not elected to be anyone’s sibling in Christ, but to be the governor of a secular state, respecting the beliefs of all citizens.”

http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/201...or-not-christian-not-my-brother-cfi-responds/