Ajalugu Podcastid

Hitleri religioon või ateism

Hitleri religioon või ateism


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Tundub, et isegi mõne ajaloolase ja isegi selle foorumi vahel on ebaselge lähenemine Hitlerile ja tema religioonile või selle puudumine, kas on olemas selge ajalugu, mis kinnitab Hitleri usulisi vaateid? Ma olen teadlik tema avalikest avaldustest oma kristluse kohta ja sellest, et ta kasutas kristlust juutide vihkamise allikana, mida ta sinna pani, näib endiselt olevat allikaid, mis väidavad, et see oli ka show, mis lõpuks jõudis maailma ülemvõimu alla ja võttis maailma üle ning eemaldas kirik Reichist, kas on tõendeid selle vastu või vastu? Artikkel siin


Hitler uskus lõplikult mõnda jumalust ja uskus ka, et Jumal saadab ta Maale seda valitsema ning juutidest ja teistest "väiksematest inimestest" lahti saama.

Eelkõige rahvameelsel mehel on püha kohus, igaüks oma konfessioonis, panna inimesed lõpetama vaid pealiskaudne rääkimine Jumala tahtest ja tegelikult täitma Jumala tahet ning mitte laskma Jumala sõna rüvetada. Sest Jumala tahe andis inimestele nende vormi, olemuse ja võimed. Igaüks, kes hävitab Tema töö, kuulutab sõja Issanda loomingule, jumalikule tahtele. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Kd. 2 10. peatükk

Ta kasvatati katoliiklikuks ja kasutas kristlust ja katoliku kirikut enda kasuks, kuid pole selge, kas ta oleks pidanud ise katoliiklaseks või kristlaseks või kasutas seda lihtsalt inimeste üle kontrolli võtmiseks. Hitler ei olnud kindlasti ateist, kuid me pole kindlad, kas ta oli kristlane või uskus ta teistesse jumalustesse.

[Muuda]

Kui soovite objektiivsemat analüüsi, vaadake siit, millised olid Hitleri religioossed vaated? ja siin oli Hitler katoliiklane, ateist või muul viisil? Alates lõpust Kui nii keerulisel teemal on võimalik järeldusi teha, näib, et Hitler ei olnud ateist ega ka katoliiklane.


Ma näen Adolf Hitlerit pigem materialistlikus kui religioosses traditsioonis. Tundus, et tal on religioonide osas suuresti instrumentaalsed, ilmalikud vaated ja sellest vaatenurgast oli tal aeg-ajalt peaaegu healoomulisi asju öelda ka juudi religiooni kohta. Järgnev tsitaat (Brigitte Hamannilt Hitleri Viin: diktaatori õpipoisiõpe) pärineb Hitleri ja Otto Wageneri 1930. aasta suhtlusest:

Juudi rahvas sai Moosese kaudu kogu elu ja oma elu elamise reegli, mis tõsteti religiooniks, mis oli täielikult kohandatud oma rassi olemuse järgi, ning lihtsalt ja selgelt, ilma dogmade ja kahtlaste usureegliteta, sisaldab kainelt ja absoluutselt reaalselt teenida Iisraeli laste tulevikku ja enese säilitamist. Kõik on suunatud oma rahva heaolule, mitte miski teistega arvestamisele ... me peame kahtlemata imetlusega tunnistama seda uskumatut tugevust, kuidas juudid oma rassi säilitavad.

Võib -olla oli tema enda religioon (kui see oli olemas) veider segu nt. germaani (nagu Nibelungenis), kristliku (nagu tema emakeelne kultuur), hindu (nagu aarialased ja vedalikud traditsioonid) ja budistlike (võib -olla nagu varasemas kommentaaris) fragmentidest. Üldiselt arvan, et see on küsimus, millel pole selget vastust.


Hitler ristiti katoliiklaseks. Kogu elu käis ta jumalateenistustel. Ta taaskasutas usku muutma ja ütles alati, et on katoliiklane.

Sellegipoolest polnud tema usk nii siiras. Näiteks teadis ta, et katoliku õpetus on teaduslike faktidega vastuolus (tsitaat Mein Kampfilt):

Ka siin on katoliku kirikul meile õppetund. Kuigi mõnikord ja sageli täiesti asjatult, selle dogmaatiline süsteem on vastuolus täppisteaduste ja teaduslike avastustega, ta ei kavatse ohverdada oma õpetuste silpi. Ta on õigesti tunnistanud, et tema vastupanuvõimet nõrgendaks suuremate või vähemate õpetuslike kohanduste kasutuselevõtt, et täita teaduse ajutisi järeldusi, mis tegelikkuses alati kõikuvad. Ja seega hoiab see kindlalt kinni oma kindlatest ja väljakujunenud dogmadest, mis üksi võivad anda kogu süsteemile usu iseloomu. Ja see on põhjus, miks see on täna kindlam kui kunagi varem. Võime prohveteerida, et püsiva poolusena põgusate nähtuste keskel köidab see jätkuvalt üha rohkem inimesi, kes on sellega pimesi seotud, seda kiirem on ümbritsevate nähtuste muutumise rütm.

Ta imetles kristlikku fanatismi:

Kristluse ülevus ei seisnenud kompromissiläbirääkimiste katses mis tahes sarnaste filosoofiliste arvamustega muistses maailmas, vaid selle järeleandmatus fanatismis kuulutamisel ja oma õpetuse eest võitlemisel.

Ta kahetses kristlikke meetodeid:

Igaüks meist võib täna kahetseda asjaolu, et kristluse tulek oli esimene kord, mil vaimne terror tutvustati palju vabamasse iidsesse maailma, kuid ei saa eitada, et sellest ajast alates on maailm sedalaadi läbinud ja domineerinud. sunniviisilisusest ja et vägivalda murrab ainult vägivald ja terror terror.

Ta uskus, et katoliku ja protestantliku usu vahel pole põhimõttelist erinevust:

Kaks kristlikku konfessiooni vaatavad ükskõikselt õilsa ja ainulaadse olendi rüvetamist ja hävitamist, kes anti maailmale Jumala armu kingitusena. Maailma tuleviku jaoks pole aga vahet, kumb kahest võidab teise üle, kas katoliiklane või protestant.

Kokkuvõtteks võib öelda, et ta oli praktiseeriv katoliiklane, kes küll uskus Jumalasse, kuid ei uskunud igasse kristlikku dogmasse, mis oli vastuolus praeguse teadusega.


Hitleri religioon: kas natside diktaator oli ateist, kristlane või midagi muud?

Adolf Hitleri usulisi tõekspidamisi mõistetakse sageli valesti kas kristlaste või ateistidena. Pilk tema enda sõnadele näitab keerulist tõde.

Kuna Hitleri religiooni täpselt määratleda on nii raske, võib tunduda, et tema religioon oli ajalooliselt ebaoluline.

Loodetavasti heidab see Hitleri religiooni uurimine aga valgust paljudele olulistele küsimustele. Esiteks kujundas tema antikristlus ilmselgelt kristlike kirikute tagakiusamist Kolmanda Reichi ajal. Teiseks aitas tema religioosne silmakirjalikkus selgitada tema võimet pöörduda laia valimisringkonna poole. Kolmandaks, tema usaldus, et tema Jumal premeerib tema pingutusi ja tahtejõudu koos jumaliku missiooni tundega, imendas teda isegi lootusetutes tingimustes lootusega. See aitab meil mõista, miks ta oli nii optimistlik kuni lõpuni, kui see oleks pidanud ilmnema palju varem, et mäng oli lõppenud.


Kas Hitler oli kristlane? Ajaloolased ütlevad ei

James Bishop | Paljud ateistid väidavad, et Hitler oli kristlane ja tema teod olid kristliku fundamentalismi akt. Kurja piibel, ateistlik fundamentalistide veebisait, väidab, et: "Miljonid kristlased moonutavad ajalugu praegu, et nad usuvad, et holokaust ei olnud kristlik tegu."

Noh, laseme sellel siis ausalt ära kuulata. Kas Hitler oli kristlane? Ühes oma kõnes, mille ta pidas aastal 1922, ütles Hitler isegi: „Minu tunded kristlasena viitavad mulle võitlejana oma Issanda ja Päästja poole.”

Ameerika poliitikakommentaator Dinesh D’Souza osutub väga kriitiliseks religioonivastaste kriitikute suhtes, kes väidavad, et Hitler on kristlane: „Ateistliku argumendi vaesus selgub veidi uurides. Mida tõestab väide, et Hitler kasvatati katoliiklaseks? Stalinit kasvatati õigeusu kirikus. Mao kasvatati budistiks. Paljud inimesed lükkavad oma usulise kasvatuse tagasi.

Hitler lükkas ägedalt tagasi traditsioonilise kristluse, milles teda kasvatati. Võimule tõusmise ajal vajas ta saksa rahva toetust, enamasti kristlast, enamasti luterlast, ning kasutas aeg -ajalt sellist katlaretoorikat nagu mina teen isandate tööd, et seda kindlustada. See retoorika, tuleb märkida, on ateistlike kirjanike seas tavaline retoorika.

Näiteks Nietzsche võrdles end regulaarselt Jeesusega, andes isegi ühele oma raamatule pealkirja Ecce Homo (vaata mees, piibellik viide Kristusele). Kuid ükski arukas Nietzsche lugeja ei saa kahtlustada, et ta oli marutaudne ateist, nagu ka Hitler. Ei tohiks segi ajada poliitilist oportunismi isikliku veendumusega. Pole üllatav, et Hitler kasutas juutide käes Kristuse surma, et paluda kristlikku toetust tema (ilmalikule ja rassilisele, mitte religioossele) antisemiitlikule tegevuskavale. ”

Nagu D’Souza kinnitab, kasvatas Hitleri kristlasena tema katoliiklasest ema ja vaimulikuvastane isa, kuid hilisemas elus hakkas ta kristlust põlgama ning oli valmis poliitiliste tundlikkuse tõttu viivitama konfliktidega kirikutega (1). Ühe tema käsilase, Albert Speeri sõnul ei olnud Hitleril „mingit tegelikku kiindumust” kristlusesse (2).

Ajaloolased Ian Kershaw, Alan Bullock ja Joachim Fest väidavad, et Hitler oli agressiivselt kristlusevastane, mida kinnitab ka Hitleri lauakõne, Goebbelsi päevikud, ja Speeri mälestused.

Isegi Goebbels väidab, et Hitler „vihkab kristlust, sest see on halvanud kõik, mis on inimkonnas üllas”. ('Goebbelsi päevikud. ”) Lisaks usub märkimisväärne osa ajaloolasi, et tegelikult oli Hitleri kavatsus kristlus välja juurida (3).

Ajaloolane Alan Bullock, kes on laialt tuntud oma eluloo poolest, mille ta Hitleri kohta kirjutas, kirjutab: „Kui sõda on lõppenud, lubas [Hitler] endale juurida ja hävitada kristlike kirikute mõju, kuid seni oli ta ettevaatlik.” (4). Shirer lisab veel, et „Rosenbergi, Bormanni ja Himmleri juhtimisel - Hitleri toel - kavatses natsirežiim hävitada Saksamaal kristluse, kui see suutis, ja asendada varajaste hõimu -germaani jumalate vana paganluse ja uue paganluse. Natside äärmuslased ”(5).

Kuid erinevalt Nõukogude Liidust ei pooldanud Hitleri režiim avalikult riiklikku ateismi, kuid püüdis vähendada kristluse mõju ühiskonnale. Tõenäoliselt ei olnud Hitler ka ateist, sest ta ei esitaks end avalikkusele sellisel viisil mujal, kui rääkis usust „kõikvõimasse looja” (6). Ajaloolane Richard Evans väidab aga, et Hitler väitis korduvalt, et natsism oli teadusele rajatud ilmalik ideoloogia.

Mõnes kõnes kõlab Hitler selgelt andunud kristlasena ja nagu eespool mainitud, ütleks ta isegi, et tema „tunded kristlasena viitavad mulle võitlejana minu Issanda ja Päästja poole”. Tema kristlusmeelseid avaldusi näib aga olevat lihtne seletada, nagu märgib Laurence Rees:

"Nende avalduste kõige veenvam selgitus on see, et Hitler poliitikuna tunnistas lihtsalt asustatud maailma praktilist reaalsust ...

Kui Hitler oleks ennast või oma liikumist kristlusest liiga palju distantseerinud, on peaaegu võimatu näha, kuidas ta oleks võinud vabadel valimistel kunagi edukas olla ”(7).

Sarnaselt asjata selgitab D'Souza, et: „Oma võimuletuleku ajal vajas ta saksa rahva toetust, enamasti kristlikku, enamasti luterlikku, ja kasutas aeg -ajalt katlalaadi retoorikat, nagu mina teen isandate tööd. kindlustage see ... Kui Hitler ja natsid aga võimule tulid, mõistsid nad kristluse hukka ja alustasid halastamatut püüdlust alistada ja nõrgendada traditsioonilist kristlust. ”

Hitler ei olnud kindlasti kristlane. Ta kasutas kristlust väga selgelt hüppelauana, et koguda toetust paljudelt Saksamaa kristlastelt, kuid hiljem seadis ta eesmärgiks kristliku religiooni väljajuurimine. Tema võimu kasvades muutus ta “kirikute suhtes üha vaenulikumaks” ja oli kristlusevastane.

Ja me peame meeles pidama, et me hindame puu üle, kuid mitte selle vilju. Need, kes püsivad pikaajalises mõrvas, ei ole mingil juhul uuestisündinud ega ole seetõttu Jeesuse tõelised järgijad. Jeesus ütleb, et need, kes mind armastavad, peavad minu käske ja võime olla kindlad, et kõigi inimeste Hitler ei pidanud kindlasti Jeesuse käske.


Einsteini-Bohri pärand: kas me saame kunagi aru saada, mida kvantteooria tähendab?

Kvantteoorial on imelikud tagajärjed. Püüdes neid selgitada, muutub asi lihtsalt veidramaks.

  • Kvantteooria veidrus lendab silmitsi sellega, mida me igapäevaelus kogeme.
  • Kvantlik veidrus tekitas kiiresti lõhe füüsikakogukonnas, mille mõlemat poolt toetasid hiiglane: Albert Einstein ja Niels Bohr.
  • Nagu näitavad kaks hiljutist vastandlikke seisukohti toetavat raamatut, kestab arutelu veel peaaegu sajandi pärast. Iga "resolutsiooniga" kaasneb kõrge hinnasilt.

Albert Einstein ja Niels Bohr, kaks 20. sajandi teaduse hiiglast, toetasid väga erinevaid maailmavaateid.

Einsteini jaoks oli maailm lõpuks ratsionaalne. Asjad pidid loogilised olema. Need peaksid olema kvantifitseeritavad ja väljendatavad põhjuste ja tagajärgede vastastikmõjude loogilise ahela kaudu, alates sellest, mida me igapäevaelus kogeme, kuni reaalsuse sügavuseni. Bohri jaoks ei olnud meil õigust oodata sellist korda või ratsionaalsust. Loodus ei pea oma sügavaimal tasemel järgima ühtegi meie ootust hästi käitunud determinismi suhtes. Asjad võivad olla imelikud ja mitte-deterministlikud, kui need muutusid rohkem sarnaseks sellega, mida me ootame, kui rändasime aatomite maailmast meie puude, konnade ja autode maailma. Bohr jagas maailma kaheks valdkonnaks, tuttavaks klassikaliseks ja harjumatuks kvantmaailmaks. Need peaksid üksteist täiendama, kuid väga erinevate omadustega.

Kaks teadlast vaidlesid aastakümneid kvantfüüsika mõju üle tegelikkuse olemusele. Mõlemal olid järgijad füüsikute rühmad, kes kõik olid oma hiiglased. Einsteini kvantide veidruste eitajate rühma kuulusid kvantfüüsika pioneerid Max Planck, Louis de Broglie ja Erwin Schrödinger, Bohri rühmas aga Werner Heisenberg (ebakindluspõhimõttega kuulsus), Max Born, Wolfgang Pauli ja Paul Dirac.

Peaaegu sajand hiljem arutelu kestab.


Kas Hitler oli kristlane, ateist või mitte kumbki?

Uus raamat heidab pilgu Adolf Hitleri usuliste vaadete vastuolulisele ja keerulisele küsimusele.

Adolf Hitleri pilte näeb 31. augustil 2015 Saksamaal Weimaris kunstifestivalil. (KNS foto/Sebastiana Kehnert, EPA)

Rohkem kui seitse aastakümmet pärast enesetappu mängib Adolf Hitler Ameerika kultuurisõdades jätkuvalt üllatavalt silmapaistvat rolli. Aruteludes religiooni ühiskondliku ja avaliku rolli üle toovad nii kristlased kui ka ilmalikud meelsasti Hitleri näite - kelle nimi on rohkem inimliku halvenemise sünonüümiks kui võib -olla kellegi teise näide - kas religiooni või ebausuliste pahede näitel. Kuidas on võimalik, et Hitlerit seostatakse jätkuvalt kristlase või ateistina, kaks täiesti vastuolulist seisukohta, mida sageli teevad hästi informeeritud inimesed? Tema valgustavas ja hästi argumenteeritud uues raamatus Hitleri religioon: keerutatud uskumused, mis juhtisid kolmandat Reichi , väidab ajaloolane Richard Weikart veenvalt, et Hitler polnud kumbki ja osava poliitikuna tegi ta sageli üksteist välistavaid avaldusi, et pöörduda Saksamaa ühiskonna erinevate sektorite poole.

"Lihtrahvas peab religiooni tõeseks, targad valeks ja valitsejad kasulikuks," mõtiskles Seneca. Weikarti raamatust selgub, et Hitler tõenäoliselt nõustub. Toetudes arvukatele inglise ja saksa allikatele-näiteks Hitleri raadioaadressidele ja avaldustele natside ajakirjandusele-tsiteerib Weikart paljusid Hitleri vastuolulisi avaldusi religiooni kohta, mõned näitavad, et ta on religioonivastane, teised kiidavad „Kõigevägevamat” ja isegi mõnikord Kristlus. Selle põhjuseks oli asjaolu, et Hitlerit huvitas vähem religiooni tõesus ja selle poliitiline kasulikkus. Weikart märgib näiteks, et kuigi Hitler kiitis heaks Martin Lutheri tugeva antisemitismi, langetas ta lõpuks reformatsiooni isale negatiivse otsuse Saksamaa ühtsuse lõhkumise eest. Teisisõnu, Hitleri hinnangul Lutherile ei olnud midagi pistmist viimase õpetusega õigeksmõistmise kohta usu kaudu ega tema lähenemisega Piiblile, vaid see põhines üksnes katoliku kirikuga lahkulöömise poliitilistel tagajärgedel.

Samuti kohandas Hitler sageli oma avaldusi religiooni kohta, et see meeldiks Saksamaa ühiskonna erinevatele sektoritele. Kuna Saksa ja Austria ühiskond oli aastatel 1933–1945 endiselt ülekaalukalt kristlik (jagunes luterlaste ja katoliiklaste vahel), tegi Hitler - kes oli Weikarti sõnade kohaselt „religioosne kameeleon, põhiline religioosne silmakirjatseja” - avaldusi, mis kiitsid Saksamaa kristlikke juuri et mitte oma toetajaid võõristada. Saksa ajaloo vilunud teadlane Weikart märgib, et pragmaatilisus on aastaid iseloomustanud paljude sakslaste lähenemist kristlusele ja isegi tänapäeval pole haruldane, et sakslased, kes on juba ammu maha jätnud usu transtsendentsesse maailma, maksavad endiselt oma laste kindlustamiseks kirikumaksu. koha s mainekas katoliku koolis s.

Weikart teeb aga selgeks, et Hitleri kristlusmeelsed avaldused olid tema kirikusse minevatele valijatele huulte teenimine. Kuigi Hitler sündis ja kasvas üles ajalooliselt katoliiklikus Austrias, kaotas ta juba varakult usu kirikusse. Weikart kirjutab, et noor Adolf oli mässumeelne õpilane, kes tülitses sageli oma keskkooli usuõpetajaga ja mõnitas klassis sageli kristlust. Weikarti suurepärane saksa keele oskus on ekraanil, kui ta seda märgib Mein Kampf ja eraviisilises kirjavahetuses kasutas Hitler seda mõistet sageli Pfaffe , halvustav saksakeelne termin preestri kohta, viidates vaimulikele. Hitleri väljakujunenud antiklerikalism oli ilmne ka pärast tema võimuletulekut, kui Goebbelsi propagandamasin kujutas katoliku preesterlust seksuaalsete pervertide domineerivana (kõrvalmärkusena, kas see taktika kõlab tuttavalt?).

Tegelikult olid Hitleri tegelikud vaated kristlusele nii veidrad, et nad oleksid oma kujutlusvõimega ekstsentrilisuses naljakad, kui mitte asjaolu, et nad olid osa psühhopaadi maailmavaatest, kelle genotsiidipoliitika tappis 11 miljonit tsiviilisikut ja vallandas veriseima sõja ajalugu. Weikart kirjutab, et Hitler, nagu ka tema lemmikfilosoof Nietzsche, ei meeldinud kristlusele, kuid imetles Jeesuse Kristuse kuju. Hitleri arvates oli Jeesus ise roomlane või kreeklane (Hitler uskus, et vanad kreeklased ja roomlased olid Põhjamaade “meistrivõistluste” eelkäijad), kelle tappis salakaval juut s.

Hitleri religioon on ka loetav intellektuaalse ajaloo teos. On üsna kõnekas, et Weikarti jutu järgi, kuigi paljud Saksa sõdurid kandsid Esimese maailmasõja ajal Piibli koopiaid, viis Hitler kaevikutesse viieköitelise Schopenhaueri teoste kogu. Weikart väidab, et kuigi Hitler hoolis evangeeliumidest vähe, mõjutasid teda sügavalt neli saksa mõtlejat: antisemiit Schopenhauer, Kant, Hegel ja eriti Nietzsche. Lisaks aastakümneid kestnud arutelule Hitleri religioossete vaadete üle annab Weikart olulise panuse ka filosoofide ja intellektuaalse ajaloolaste võrdselt vastuolulisse ja lõputusse arutellu Hitleri võlgnevuse üle Nietzsche ees. Weikart väidab veenvalt, et kui Hi tler kasutas kahtlemata Nietzsche filosoofiat valikuliselt, siis Kolmas Reich viis filosoofi maailmavaate teatud aspektid nende loogilise järelduseni. See kehtib eriti Hitleri eutanaasiaprogrammi puhul, kuna esimesed natsismiohvrid olid vaimselt haiged või eakad sakslased või puudega inimesed jälitavad selgelt Nietzsche tõrjumist nõrkade ja kannatanute suhtes. Vahepeal iseloomustas natside propaganda juute, mustlasi, slaavlasi, mustanahalisi jt Untermenschen- "alaminimesed" - oli ilmne viide Nietzsche supermeeste kontseptsioonile Übermensch .

Hitleri religioon sisaldab Weikarti raamatust lühiülevaadet natsi -Saksamaa kristlike kirikute tagakiusamisest, on selge, et katoliku kirikut sihiti rohkem kui luterlasi. Saksamaal võimule tulles likvideerisid natsid katoliku Keskerakonna (kuigi Weikart seda ei maini, väärib märkimist, et tulevase paavsti Benedictus XVI onu Georg Ratzinger oli Keskerakonna parlamendisaadik) ja saatis katoliiklikud noored laiali. organisatsioonid, ajalehed ja kodanikuühendused. Weikart mainib lühidalt tuhandete preestrite internatsiooni Dachau koonduslaagris, kuigi soovitakse, et ta teeks seda üksikasjalikumalt. Lugu enam kui 2000 preestri vangistamisest üle Euroopa vanimas natside koonduslaagris tuleb paremini teada saada, kuna see kujutab graafiliselt Hitleri põlgust kristluse vastu.

Weikart toob olulise vaatenurga ka arutelule traditsioonilise kristliku judaismivastase ja natsi-Saksamaa antisemitismi vaheliste suhete üle. Weikart ei suhkruta midagi ja märgib õigesti, et kristlikel kirikutel oli juutide ja judaismi suhtes pikka põlgust (kuigi tuleb mainida, et paralleel selle traditsiooniga oli juutidele ka kristlikuks toeks sajandeid enne Vatikani II kirikukogu): Näiteks hukkasid keskajal paljud paavstid, kes algasid 1247. aastal Innocentius IV-ga, hukka vere laimumüüdi, mis tõi sageli kaasa antisemiitliku vägivalla kogu Euroopas). Siiski demonstreerib ta hiilgavalt, kuidas kristlik judaismivastus erines natside antisemitismist.

Weikart märgib, et esimene neist oli seotud teoloogiliste küsimustega. Ta märgib, et kristlikud kirikud ei kohtlenud juutidesse pöördunud kristlasi teisiti kui teisi kristlasi.

Lisaks kirjutab Weikart, et kuigi kristlikud kirikud põlgasid sajandeid judaismi, siis kuulutasid nad samal ajal armastust ligimese vastu, olenemata tema päritolust. Nagu ütleb Paulus Galaatlastele 3:28: „Ei ole juuti ega kreeklast, ei ole orja ega vaba inimest, ei ole mehi ega naisi, sest te kõik olete üks Kristuses Jeesuses. "Hitleri antisemitismis polnud aga religiooniga mingit pistmist ja see oli seotud ainult rassiga. Tegelikult vihkas Hitler kristlikke kirikuid, kuna nad keeldusid pärast ristimist juute sellisena nägemast. Hitleri jaoks oli juut juut, olenemata tema liikmelisusest. Weikarti raamat oleks täiustatud, kui ta sisaldaks ülevaadet kristlike kirikute erinevatest reageeringutest - nii Saksamaal kui ka sõja ajal okupeeritud riikides - Kolmanda Reichi tagakiusamisele ja hiljem juutide tapmisele.

Mida Hitler siis uskus? Weikart kirjutab veenvalt, et kuigi puuduvad tõendid selle kohta, et ta oleks seda terminit enda suhtes selgesõnaliselt rakendanud, oli Adolf Hitler panteist. Hitler armastas looduses aega veeta ning rääkis sageli loodusest ja Jumalast vaheldumisi. Hitler uskus, et maailm on looduse poolt tahetud ja tellitud, mis andis jumalikke omadusi. Hitleri maailmavaade oli aga lähemal materialistlikule aukartusele universumi korrasoleku pärast kui müstilisele panteismile. Kuigi Hitler nägi loodust kui Jumalat, jättis tema maailmavaade üleloomulikule vähe ruumi. Näiteks ei uskunud Hitler teispoolsusesse nii, nagu enamik inimesi seda mõistet mõistab. Pigem oli tema arusaam teispoolsusest, et kollektiivne mälestus rahva suurusest antakse ajaloos edasi. Weikart märgib, et kuigi kõik nimisõnad on saksa keeles suure algustähega, on ingliskeelsed tõlked Mein Kampf - sealhulgas see, mille arve on natside ametlik tõlge järjekindlalt tõlkida Natur kui "loodus" ja suure algustähega "N." Weikarti arvates tuletas Hitler oma antisemitismi osaliselt Saksa bioloogi Ernst Haeckeli rassistlikust, pseudobioloogilisest sotsiaaldarvinismist.

Üllatav on aga see, et Weikart ei maini üldse Hitleri taimetoitlust. Nii nagu SS tappis miljoneid koonduslaagrites või massitulistamistega, kostitas Hitler oma õhtusöögikülalisi sageli iiveldavate, vistseraalsete kirjeldustega lihatöökodades ja lihakombinaatides toimuvast.

Kõigi selle oluliste panuste eest intellektuaalsesse ajalukku, Hitleri religioon tal on paar puudust, mida tuleb märkida. Näiteks kirjutab Weikart valesti, et Hitleri arusaam Volk "Võib isegi tähendada kõiki neid, kellel on põhjamaised rassilised omadused, isegi kui nad on etniliselt taanlased või hollandlased või norralased või poolakad." See viga on üsna silmatorkav. Kui taanlased, hollandlased ja norralased on kahtlemata germaani rahvad, siis slaavi poolakad seda kindlasti ei ole. Natside ideoloogias pidi Poola ja Nõukogude Liit ületama ja muutma Lebensraum või elutuba saksa kolonistidele. Poolakad hävitati või muudeti orjatöötajateks “meistrivõistlusteks”. See viga on silmatorkav, sest hiljem märgib Weikart ise raamatus Poola katoliku kiriku äärmiselt jõhkrat tagakiusamist natsi -Saksamaa käes. Poola riikliku mälestuse instituudi hinnangul mõrvas natsi-Saksamaa vähemalt 2,5 miljonit mittejuudi poolakat. Juutide järel olid etnilised poolakad Hitleri ohvrite suuruselt teine ​​rühm.

Weikart märgib oma raamatu sissejuhatuses, et kui ta (üllatavalt edukalt, ma võin lisada) 2010. aasta palverännakul Ühendkuningriiki, kiitis paavst Benedictus XVI Briti rahvast, et ta on julgelt võidelnud natsi -Saksamaa, maailma kõige lärmakama ateisti Richard Dawkinsi vastu, kirjutas, et endise Hitler -noorte liikmena oleks Benedictus pidanud ema hoidma. Probleem pole selles, et see on vale, vaid selles, et Weikart jätab selle kommentaarita. See on katoliku kiriku suur avalike suhete fiasko, et „Hitler -noorte Ratzingeri” kuvand on püsinud, mitte aga kangelaslikust mehest, kes riskis oma eluga, hüljates natsismi. Tõepoolest, tulevane paavst oli Hitler Noorte liige. Siiski pole laialt teada, et kõik saksa noored oleksid organisatsiooni kohustuslikud liikmed ja noor Joseph Ratzinger deserteeruks sellest. See oli julge trots, sest kui ta tabataks, oleks ta tõenäoliselt maha lastud ja maailma ei õnnistaks kunagi Benedictus XVI pontifikaat. (Kõnekas on see, et peavoolumeedia suhtus saksa romaanikirjaniku Günter Grassi - suure kirjaniku, kuid vigase mehe - suhtes palju leebemalt, kui 2006. aastal, pärast kuue aastakümne pikkust kaasmaalaste kutsumist oma natside minevikuga arvestama, avaldas ta 2006. aastal Waffen -SS vabatahtlik liige noorukina.)

Sellest hoolimata, Hitleri religioon on märkimisväärse tähtsusega teos. Võib loota, et see lõpetab vaidluse Hitleri religiooni üle lõplikult. Pärast selle avaldamist ei saa intellektuaalselt aus ateist enam ekslikult väita, et Hitler oli kristlane, samas kui intellektuaalselt aus kristlane, kes hoolib täpsusest, peab andma nüansirikkama vastuse kui „Hitler ei uskunud Jumalasse. "Ta tegi seda, kuid Hitleri Jumal erineb suuresti kristluse Jumalast.

Hitler ’s Religion: Keerutatud uskumused, mis juhtisid Kolmanda Reichi
Richard Weikart
Regnery ajalugu, 2016
Kõva köide, 352 lehekülge

Kui hindate uudiseid ja vaateid, mida pakub katoliku maailma aruanne, kaaluge meie jõupingutuste toetamiseks annetamist. Teie panus aitab meil jätkuvalt CWR -i kõigile tellijatele kogu maailmas tasuta kättesaadavaks teha. Tänan teid suuremeelsuse eest!

CWR -ile annetamise kohta lisateabe saamiseks klõpsake siin. Meie uudiskirja tellimiseks klõpsake siin.

Seotud artiklid

Jumal ja Winston Churchill

Tühistamiskultuuri ärkveldatud jõugud on tulnud Winston Churchilli jaoks nii siin Ameerika Ühendriikides kui ka kodumaal, kus meest peeti pikka aega kangelaseks, kes ei teinud midagi lühikest […]

Kas see 18. sajandi preester oli Vietnami Mooses?

George E. Dutton jutustab oma raamatus „Vietnami mooses: Philiphe Binh ja varauusaegse katoliikluse geograafiad” saaga isa Philiphe Binhi katsetest esitada Portugali kuningale uue piiskopi avaldus […].

Kõige paremini hoitud kirjanduslik saladus 2020

Charis imede maailmas on aasta romaan - ja tõenäoliselt pole te sellest kunagi kuulnud. Või kui olete, siis pole te seda veel lugenud. Igal aastal sada tuhat […]

25 kommentaari

Adolf oli oma koguduse koori liige ja püüdis preesterluse poole biograaf William Shireri järgi [Kolmanda Reichi tõus ja langus]. See hetk möödus kiiresti ja ta vaimustus Richard Wagnerist ja saksa kangelasmütoloogiast. Wagneri muusika saatis teda nägemustega põhjamaisest kangelaslikkusest, võidust jumalate toetatud kurjuse vastu. Shirer nimetaks seda verehimuks kõige teutooni kummardamise mõttes. Selleks ajaks, kui ta oma võimule tõusmist alustas, hõlmas tema usk usku puhta verega aarialase alistamatusse paremusse. Ta ütles, et kui soovite Saksamaast aru saada, kuulake Wagnerit. Himmler toetas Hitleri saksa mütoloogilisi fantaasiaid, mis edendasid põhjamaist pseudomüstikat. SS-okultismi keskus asus Wewelsburgis, renessansiajastu lossis, mis asub Wewelsburgi külas [tänapäeval kasutatakse seda sümbolina odinismis ja neonatsismis ning okultismis]. Hitler sai Lanz von Liebenfelsilt ka okultistlikke juhtnööre ja tal oli kalduvus prohvetlike märkide järele tähtedes. Tema religiooni võib kirjeldada kui okultistlikku Põhjamaade mütoloogiat. Kristluse vastane, antikristlane saatanlikult inspireeritud okultism. Pr Leon Christiani raamatu „Tõendid Saatanast kaasaegses maailmas” autor uskus, et Hitleri ajal valitsenud saksa rahvas oli suuresti [tahtmatult] Saatanast kinnisideeks.

Adolfi kohta on vastuolulisi lugusid. See viimane ülevaade tema usuvastasest suhtumisest klassis, tema seminarisse astumisest ja olen ka lugenud, et ta arreteeriti Austrias meeste prostitutsiooni tõttu. Kuni lõpliku eluloo kirjutamiseni jätkame temaga lepitamata lugude lugemist.

Ma ei saanud kunagi aru, miks Hitler vihkas juute nii palju ega miks minu saksa/iiri perekonnas on mingisugune sarnasus antisemitismiga. Tädi meenutas, et Hitleri poolt tapetud kristlasi oli rohkem kui juute. Mäletan, et nägin ainult juute, kes piilusid karjavagunite küljelattide vahelt ja viisid nad surmalaagritesse. Hitleri võis kahe mainitud kõrval olla nii palju truudust. Kes võiks sel hetkel hoolida?

Laisk katoliiklusvastane: “ Hitler, Goerring, Himmler ja Goebbels olid kõik katoliiklased! ”

Laisk antisemiit: “ Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev ja Jegoda olid kõik juudid! ”

Idioodid ei küsi, millised katoliiklased ja juudid nad olid? Kui sageli käisid Hitler, Goerring, Himmler ja Goebbels missal ja said sakramente? Kui nad olid praktikas katoliiklased, siis miks nad taga kiusasid jõhkralt oma kirikut, mõrvasid palju preestreid ja nunnasid ning mõistsid kibedalt oma usku?

Kui sageli käisid Trotski jt templiteenistustel? Mis liiki “juudid ja#8221 need olid? Nad ei olnud rohkem juudid ja#8221 kui Stalin ja vene õigeusklikud või grusiinid. Need nn juudi bolševikud kiusasid taga ja hukkasid ka judaismi ning midagi, mida antisemiidid ja vasakpoolsed on sageli ignoreerinud.

Katoliiklik identiteet kuulub katoliiklastele ja juudi identiteet juutidele - midagi enamat kui näiteks vabariiklaste jaoks. Katoliiklased usuvad, et ristimine jätab hinge märgi, mida ükski tegevus või tegevusetus, olgu see tahtlik ja patune, ei saa kustutada, nagu Aabrahami, Iisaki ja Jaakobi laste puhul, keegi ei saa valida, millisesse perekonda ta sünnib. Ananias ja Sapphira olid kristlased, kuigi mitte väga head kristlased Korah ja Jeroboam olid juudid, kuigi mitte väga head juudid.

Esitage sama küsimus katoliku kardinalide ja preestrite kohta, kes on tunnistatud süüdi laste ja nunnade ahistamises. Kui palju kvaliteeti oli nende katoliiklikus usus?


Postitanud

Hitler oli parim.
Ta ei olnud pühendunud katoliiklane. Ta oli küüniline neodarvinistlik ateist, kes keelas kristluse pärast seda, kui kasutas kaasaegset tehnoloogiat tuhandete katoliku preestrite ja luterliku kiriku pea tõhusaks tapmiseks.
Esimene tsitaat piitsutamise kohta võeti Mien Kampfi, Hitleri ja#039 propoganda katsest võrgutada nominaalselt kristlik riik natsismile. See oli kirjutatud ajal, mil inimesed nälgisid Saksamaa tänavatel ja otsisid oma meeleheidet ja viha.
Teine tsitaat Engelile ei öeldud kunagi. Engel võttis Engeli arvatavatest päevikutest ja tunnistas hiljem, et tema raamat oli pettus.
Natsid said alguse Thule ühiskonnana, ateistide, uuspaganate ja satanistide kogumina.
Satanism oli SS -kultuuris väga silmapaistev. Liitlased kaalusid pärast sõda natside kohtu alla andmist kristliku tagakiusamise eest, kuid otsustasid, et see dubleerib nende jõupingutusi, kuna neil oli juba holokausti eest süüdistusi. Saksamaa ei naasnud täielikult usu juurde.

Ma ei tea, miks te kirjutaksite sõjad religioosseks tapmiseks. Sõjad on alati seotud jõukude, hõimude või kultuuride vahel peetavate ressursside, maa, vee, naftaga jne.
The stat you should be concerned with is the communists atheists murder of 125 million people in peacetime during the 20th century That's a conservative estimate but it represents the effort to promote an atheistic society..

"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. When understanding of the universe has become widespread. Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.
"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity. And that's why someday its structure will collapse.
". the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.
"Christianity <is> the liar.
"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52)

Some of your examples were pre-20th Century rendering them useless (as you stated 20th century).

Though i totally agree, Religion does cause war and has throughout its long history killed alot more than any atheist.

And as that fucking comrade above said - the war's aint just thought by/for religion (even if the people carrying them out were religious). Vietnam was more about stopping the communist threat to the west.

the opening paragraph is surely right, but really, the rest is tired stuff. if you want to put your finger on individuals, cromwell, the popes who called the crusades, and the leaders of the arab conquests (don't know any names) were motivated by religion (and much else). but stalin studied in a seminary, yet bormann stated explicity that nazism and xianity were incompatible (and much else, there's this link which i wish had further cits but has no reason to be sympathetic to xianity). which column to put them in?

these were times in which everyone was a member of some sect - marx was baptized too (lutheran i believe). to say that the 'leader' of the famine or of the rwandan genocide was a member of a church doesn't really say anything. though it may seem useful in polemics, a religious partisan will be able to slide out by saying that the participation in mass killing 'proves' that a person was not a 'real' christian, or otoh that the OT justifies killing for godly reasons (like invading iraq).

Actually the first quote is from a public speech he made, not Mein Kampf. Fair enough about the second quote - if you can point to where Engel made that retraction I'll get rid of it - but the fact remains he actively used Catholicism as a means to motivate fascism, much as Franco did with the Falange.

I'd also like to see some realistic (ie. non-partisan) sources backing the suggestion he was a satanist or a pagan, this guy for example does some work debunking the idea.

It's highly disingenuous to say Hitler was anti-Catholic, he happily engaged with the Pope and indeed was tacitly supported by Vatican on several occasions, there was certainly no specific pogrom against the church and indeed, in the Balkans there was active collaboration by Catholic preachers and Nazis in gunning down the church's religious rivals.

Actually 125 million is the absolute top limit given by reputable historians, the "conservative" figure is more like 10 million by Stalin, 20 million by Zedong (more on that later). If we're going by top limits, the one round of genocide by Christian settlers in the Americas outstrips the worst estimates of Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist murder.

Ristisõjad
Leaders: Various
1 million
Bearing in mind that the population of the world in the 11th century was 1/20th what it is today, and the weaponry consisted of bows, arrows and sharp bits of metal, this brutal war between Christian Europe and the Muslim Middle East was even worse than it sounds.

Witchcraft burnings
Leaders: various
Casualties: 40-100,000
Fairly obviously, a bit of a Christian one.

Iraq dictatorship
Leaders: Saddam Hussein, various US Presidents
Casualties: 500,000-1.2 million
Another secular leader, but Hussein professed to be an active Sunni Muslim, appearing in various propaganda posters dressed in full headdress and robe, praying to Mecca. On the other side, UN sanctions, led by religious US presidents, are thought ot have led to the deaths of over 200,000 chirldren.

Iraq occupation
Leaders: George Bush (United Methodist) Tony Blair (CoE, then Catholic)
Casualties: 1 million
Hey here's a plan, a bunch of Saudis have attacked America, lets invade Iraq and hold it for half a decade despite the fact it's no threat whatsoever! Oh, and God told them to do that.

Cambodia's Killing Fields
Leader: Pol Pot
Casualties: 1.5 million
Another straight-up one led by an atheist.

China's Great Leap Forward
Leader: Mao Zedong
Casualties: 49-78 million
The largest of the major massacres carried out by Leninist-inspired revolutionaries. Again, Mao wasn't a big fan of God.

Incidentally, a note on this for any other defenders of the faith here, if you're going to say "communists/atheists did this" and refuse to allow communists to say "these people weren't real communists" you'll have to play by the same rules for people who cite religion in their own dirty dealings. You can't disown their religious fervour just because they've fulfilled it in ways you don't agree with.

franco, definitely, i'd add him to my own list with cromwell et al.

Goebbels notes in a diary entry in 1939: "The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race."[22] Albert Speer reports in his memoirs of a similar statement made by Hitler: "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"[23]

In 1941, Hitler praised an anti-Christian tract from AD 362, neo-platonist and pagan Roman emperor Julian the Apostate's Against the Galileans, saying "I really hadn't known how clearly a man like Julian had judged Christians and Christianity, one must read this. "[24]

In 1941, according to the diary of Nazi General Gerhart Engel, Hitler stated "But i am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."[25]

Author Konrad Heiden has quoted Hitler as stating, "We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany."[26]

conversely, you can't own their religious fervor because they seem to have fulfilled in ways that suit your own argument.

i'm still unclear on the concept. against whom are you marshalling this information? everyone you've listed above is a mass murderer some, but few, were motivated by religiosity all used religious tropes if it suited their purposes. the last of these is a solid blow, at least against xianity, it seems to me: if xianity were really a religion of peace, i'd think there'd be some built-in immunity to its use in any way as an excuse for killing. some xians have gone totally non-violent and have chosen death to resistance.

Well as I note above, evangelicals tend to argue that being religious makes you a better person alongside the argument that Stalin/Hitler/Mao were anti-religious communists. My point with this is that it's actually quite easy to make the case using the same methodology of "this bastard said he believed in this therefore atheism=brutal massacre" to suggest a much larger variety of mass murder has been carried out directly under the Christian banner over a much longer period.

In the end however what I'm doing is taking the argument to its logical conclusion to show how much of a farce it is. The point is the same one I start with, that it's not the professed beliefs of a given dictator which make the difference. Sindikubwabo didn't help organise the massacre of the Tutsis because of his religion, he used religion to justify outrageously cruel practices designed to destroy his and his allies' perceived rivals. Stalin did the same thing with "communism" and "atheism."

What drives these things is the elites' desire to retain power, not the colour of their armband.

lol, who would believe or care about engel after that? interesting that the guy is a fraud and you wont believe anything but a retraction from him. the nazi hierarchy hated christianity.

if you follow hitler's statements regarding the divine, they go from christian propaganda when he begins, to very generic comments about God. this marked the churches opposition to his policies. he began by working with the church and later infiltrating them, finally he began his own national christian church, which banned al christian symbols and the bible in place of nazi and thule images and literature, it's called bait and switch.
when Germans failed to attend he actively persecuted christians. he also asked people to pray to him, that being hitler.
he plotted to kidnap the Pope. the Pope didnt work with him. ive seen people cite diplomatic protocol letters as proof that Hitler worked with the Pope. that's silly. the Pope kept lines of communication going to avoid a bloodbath.Hitler signed an agreement with the Pope for religious liberty of catholics, then reneged.

Hitler arrested and executed the head of the Lutheran church. He killed thousands of Catholic priests who opposed him. the church was working to free catholics and jews from his clutches. not all clergy stood up to him, since they didnt want to be martyrs.again, when you produce clergy from a nominally christian nation, you will produce lukewarm clergy as well.
Germany never fully returned to faith, and is now the most atheistic nation in the world.

i didnt say hitler was a satanist or a pagan, he was surrounded in the thule society and later the DAP by them: atheists, satanists and neo pagans, morphed and evolved into the nazi party.
the history channel has a documentary on it.
most western nations turned to authoritarian rule or socialism in the great depression.
hitler used germany's terrible circumstances to create a scapegoat, the jews and the foreign nations. remember it was a nominally christian nation only, so many people went along with it.the germans had a history of anti christian philosophy, even among christians. nietzsche's biography was substituted for the Bible in German soldiers backpacks.
i'd remind you there was no Holocaust before Hitler and his godless ideology.

125 million dead is the figure that the US Congress gave as to all communist genocide.in the 20th century up until then, though that might have been before Pol Pot.

logic would tell us that when the objective moral standards of religion are replaced by godless ideologies ro no ideology at all, it's a slippery slope to hell.

for the atheist, a subjective moral code serves in place of the golden rule.
for an atheist like Jeffery dahmer, it means eating house guests is ok.(he blamed atheism for his crimes).

for an atheist like jim jones (yes, he was an atheist-marxist), campers drink laced fruit drinks.
for Hitler and Stalin and the other leaders of 20th century 'isms' it meant applying neo darwinist principles to humans.
unlike what's stated in the Declaration of Independence, the freedom or jurisdictional charter of the USA, the atheist doesnt believe God bestows inalienable rights to all his children.
the state gives, and can take away since mankind is just another animal in their view.


Was Adolf Hitler religious?

Online contention between religious believers and unbelievers often centers on wars and violence. Anti-religious skeptics point to Islamist terrorism, the Crusades and the hundreds of victims of the Inquisition (which lasted from the 12th century to the early 19th). In response, believers point to the scores of millions killed by militantly atheistic regimes in such places as Russia, Albania, China and Cuba — murders that, like those committed earlier in the French Revolution, were often explicitly motivated by hostility to religion.

Commonly mentioned in such debates is “Godwin’s Law.” Formulated in 1990 by the American attorney and writer Mike Godwin, this “law” isn’t, as many mistakenly believe it to be, a rule somehow prohibiting comparisons to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Rather, it’s a prediction. Said Godwin, “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1” — that is, if an online disagreement (whatever its topic) lasts long enough, one party to the disagreement will eventually compare the other party to Hitler or the Nazis.

“Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich” (Regnery History, 2016) is by Richard Weikart. Regnery Publishing

Godwin’s Law draws its force from the fact that, quite understandably for most people, Hitler and the Nazis represent the worst kind of human evil. Thus, successfully linking one’s opponent in a dispute to Nazism can (supposedly) yield a decisive victory.

Not surprisingly, therefore, Hitler and the Nazis frequently appear in arguments over religious and irreligious violence. This isn’t merely a historical debate it’s a lively issue in ongoing disputes.

Many theists claim that, like Stalin and Mao, Hitler was an atheist. Thus, they insist, his genocidal murders must be added to atheism’s overall death toll. Not so, counter the atheists. Not only was Hitler raised an Austrian Catholic, but he often declared his belief in God and even called himself a Christian. His persecution of the Jews, they say, was simply an extreme continuation of Christian anti-Semitism, of hating “the Jews” for killing Jesus.

The theists reply that Hitler’s occasional “Christian” rhetoric was just a savvy politician’s attempt to win over a largely religious populace. Privately, Hitler denied the existence of a personal God, rejected the concept of an individual afterlife, mocked Christian morality and sought to damage and, in the long term, to destroy the churches.

In fact, Hitler was a supremely cunning demagogue who routinely lied, and his record is mixed. However, Richard Weikart has recently published what is almost certainly the most sustained and exhaustive study of “Hitler’s Religion,” coming to a clear conclusion that seems to account for all the historical data.

Hitler, Weikart argues in “Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich” (Regnery History, 2016), was neither an atheist nor a Christian. His hatred of the Jews bears little or no resemblance to historical Christian anti-Semitism. Rather, it was based on certain strains of contemporary “science.” Nor, for that matter, despite some claims, was he a Germanic pagan or an occultist. Some prominent Nazis cultivated astrology and occultism, while some even sought to revive the pre-Christian Germanic religion of the high god Odin or Wotan. But Hitler himself disdained such things as unscientific.

Instead, Hitler was deeply devoted to the outdoors and to Nature (with a capital “N”), to which he referred using language that theists typically reserve for deity. The term that seems best to describe his view, contends Weikart, is “pantheism,” a doctrine that identifies God with the universe. “For Hitler,” Weikart concludes, “God was Nature.”

He was also devoted to science, as he understood it. Specifically, he was a follower of “social Darwinism.” From the Darwinian principle of “natural selection,” he deduced that the supreme law of Nature (and, thus, in Hitler’s view, of “the Lord”) is the survival of the fittest. All of life is a struggle in which superior animals — including the best of them, humans (and specifically “Aryan” or Germanic humans) — have the right and even the moral duty to eliminate or enslave “inferior” animals (including “lesser races” of humans).

From this understanding flowed the Nazi extermination camps (which engaged not only in the wholesale murder of such ethnic groups as Jews, Slavs and Romas, also know as Gypsies, but the destruction of children with disabilities), the forced sterilization of “defective” people, incentive programs to encourage high German birthrates, lack of interest in hospital care for the chronically ill and the Nazi glorification of war as something good for its own sake.

In Hitler’s mind, his actions were dictated by science and ruthless logic.

Daniel Peterson founded BYU's Middle Eastern Texts Initiative, chairs The Interpreter Foundation and blogs on Patheos. William Hamblin is the author of several books on premodern history. They speak only for themselves.


Were Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot atheists?

In debunking atheism and using the tu quoque or “you too!” argument to point fingers in the opposite direction whenever religious atrocities are raised, defenders of theism often bring up the notion that some of the most destructive and genocidal ideologies in history, Communism, Nazism and “Pol Potery,” were “atheistic,” because their leaders were “atheists.”

In my book The Gospel According to Acharya S, I delve briefly into these subjects, raising a few facts and conclusions that may not be widely known – but should be, because of these anti-atheist arguments. Here is a pertinent excerpt from The Gospel, also included in an Examiner article, “Is atheism the answer, Part 3?”, which is the source for the last two paragraphs of commentary here. (All facts in the following excerpt are carefully cited in The Gospel from reliable sources.)

Were Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot atheists?

Theists hold up Communism and Nazism, along with the regime of the Cambodian tyrant Pol Pot, as evidence of murderous “atheist” tyrannies that have caused the deaths of tens of millions. While it may be true that Communism portrayed itself as “godless,” it did not wage war in the name of atheism, nor were its founders and leaders raised as atheists. They were, in fact, preponderantly Jewish and Christian. Kommunistlik manifest writer Karl Marx was born a Jew, the grandson of two rabbis, and was converted to Christianity at age 6. Leon Trotsky, whose real name was Lev Bronstein, was born and raised a Jew but later declared himself “an internationalist.”

Josef Stalin’s “very religious” mother named him after St. Joseph, and wanted him to become a priest. Stalin himself supposedly claimed that his father had been a priest, and he was purportedly “damaged by violence” while being “raised in a poor priest-ridden household.” As a youth, Stalin spent five years in a Greek Orthodox seminary, after which he purportedly renounced his religion. In his later years, Stalin apparently embraced Christianity once more. As Stalin biographer Edvard Radinsky remarks, “During his mysterious retreat [of June 1941] the ex-seminarist had decided to involve the aid of the God he had rejected.” Radinsky likewise chronicles a number of religious comrades in Stalin’s immediate circle. It is evident that, whether for good or bad, religion played a significant role in Stalin’s life.

Adolf Hitler was raised a Catholic, and in a speech in 1922 he remarked, “My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter…” In his autobiography Mein Kampf (1.2), Hitler stated:

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

Throughout his life, Hitler invoked God and “the Lord,” demonstrating his religioosne, not atheistic, nature. Pol Pot was raised a Buddhist and Catholic. In this regard, Dr. Ian Harris, a Reader in Religious Studies at the University College of St. Martin, relates: “In one of his early writings Pol Pot wrote approvingly that the ‘democratic regime will bring back the Buddhist moralism because our great leader Buddha was the first to have taught [democracy].'” Although in comparison to the Abrahamic religions its history is far less violent, Buddhism has not been entirely devoid of atrocity in its spread and practice.

If we are to insist—as many people have done, including numerous theists and atheists alike—that religious human abuse is the cause of atheistic reaction against religion, we need look no further, it would seem, than to Josef Stalin’s religiously abusive childhood to discover from where much of his rage appeared to emanate. His atheistic reaction therefore would be caused by religion. Hitler, who was also fascinated by mysticism, could not be deemed an “atheist” by any scientific standard, and Pol Pot also was not raised an atheist in a vacuum devoid of religion but was obviously affected and motivated by it.

If atheism is frequently but a reaction against human abuse by religion, then in itself such disbelief may not be the cause of malfeasance.


The Religion of Hitler (1998)

Who is going to control the present - fundamentalism or freedom? History is being distorted by many preachers and politicians. They are heard on the airwaves condemning atheists and routinely claim Adolph Hitler was one. What a crock! Hitler was a Roman Catholic, baptized into that religio-political institution as an infant in Austria. He became a communicant and an altar boy in his youth, and was confirmed as a "soldier of Christ" in that church. The worst doctrines of that church never left him. He was steeped in its liturgy, which contained the words, "perfidious Jew." This hateful statement was not removed until 1961. Perfidy means treachery.

In his day, hatred of Jews was the norm. In great measure it was sponsored by the two major religions of Germany, Catholicism and Lutheranism. He greatly admired Martin Luther, who openly hated the Jews. Luther condemned the Catholic Church for its pretensions and corruption, but he supported the centuries of papal pogroms against the Jews. Luther said, "The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows seven times higher than ordinary thieves," and "We ought to take revenge on the Jews and kill them." "Ungodly wretches" he calls the Jews in his widely read Table Talk .

Hitler seeking power, wrote in Mein Kampf . ". I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work." Years later, when in power, he quoted those same words in a Reichstag speech in 1938.

Three years later he informed General Gerhart Engel: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." He never left the church, and the church never left him. Great literature was banned by his church, but his miserable Mien Kampf never appeared on the Index of Forbidden Books .

He was not excommunicated or even condemned by his church. Popes, in fact, contracted with Hitler and his fascist friends Franco and Mussolini, giving them veto power over whom the pope could appoint as a bishop in Germany, Spain and Italy. The three thugs agreed to surtax the Catholics of their countries and send the money to Rome in exchange for making sure the state could control the church.

Those who would make Hitler an atheist should turn their eyes to history books before they address their pews and microphones. Acclaimed Hitler biographer, John Toland, explains his heartlessness as follows: "Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god. "

Hitler's Germany amalgamated state with church. Soldiers of the vermacht wore belt buckles inscribed with the following: "Gott mit uns" (God is with us). His troops were often sprinkled with holy water by the priests. It was a real Christian country whose citizens were indoctrinated by both state and church to blindly follow all authority figures, political and ecclesiastical.

Hitler, like some of today's politicians and preachers, politicized "family values." He liked corporal punishment in home and in school. Jesus prayers became mandatory in all schools under his administration. While abortion was illegal in pre-Hitler Germany he took it to new depths of enforcement, requiring all doctors to report to the government the circumstances of all miscarriages. He openly despised homosexuality and criminalized it. If past is prologue, we know what to expect if liberty becomes license.

As a young child, I remember my late father, Martin J. Murphy, practicing a speech and loudly quoting the following: "Light up the mountain. Bring out the wild and fiery steed. Let it be known, that I, Gustavus, have insulted the King." Thinking for yourself and speaking your true thoughts - now that's a real family value.

"The Religion of Hitler" is copyright © 1998 by John Patrick Michael Murphy.
The electronic version is copyright © 1999 Internet Infidels with the written permission of John Patrick Michael Murphy.


The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity?

I got a call from a gentleman from San Francisco who was exorcised about Christian missionaries going into foreign lands. Then he started talking about not only the destruction of indigenous beliefs, but also the destruction of missionaries. That’s what he wanted to see happen. He also said that Christians and religious groups are responsible for the greatest massacres of history. It turns out he was quite supportive of Wicca and indigenous religions which worship the Mother Earth force, Gaia. This is essentially the basic foundation for witchcraft and I made a comment then that this was basically what he was talking about.

But a couple of the things that he said were a challenge to me. Not only did he assert that historically missionaries have destroyed cultures and indigenous religions at the point of a gun, but also Christianity and religion were responsible for most of the bloodshed in the world, or the great majority of it. I’ve heard this claim before. I wanted to respond with more detail because I’m sure you’ve heard these things as well.

I have a tactic that I employ in situations like this that is called “Just the Facts, Ma’am.” In other words, there are times when you’re faced with objections to Christianity or your point of view that really fail with an accurate assessment of the facts. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them.

The assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. The greatest atrocities committed against man were done in the name of God.

Before I get to the particular facts, there is more than just a factual problem here. There is a theoretical problem as well, and I tried to make the point that we must distinguish between what an individual or group of people do and what the code that they allegedly follow actually asserts. The fact is that there are people who do things consistently that are inconsistent with the code that they allegedly follow. But often times when that happens, especially where religion is concerned, the finger is pointed not at the individual who is choosing to do something barbaric, but at the code he claims to represent. The only time it’s legitimate to point to the code as the source of barbarism is if the code is, in fact, the source of barbarism. People object to a religion that used barbaric means to spread the faith. But one can only use that as an objection against the religion if it’s the religion itself that asserts that one must do it this way, as opposed to people who try to promote the spread of the religion in a forceful fashion in contradiction to what the religion actually teaches.

It’s my understanding that much of Islam has been spread by the edge of the sword. That isn’t because Muslim advocates were particularly violent. It’s because their religion actually advocates this kind of thing. The difference between that and Christianity is that when Christianity was spread by the edge of the sword it was done so in contradistinction to the actually teachings of Christianity. This is when individual people who claim to be Christians actually did things that were inconsistent with their faith.

I’ve had some people that have told me when I’ve brought this up, “That’s not a fair defense. You can’t simply say that those people who committed the Crusades or the Inquisition or the witch burnings weren’t real Christians. That’s illegitimate.” My response is, why? We know what a real Christian is. A real Christian is someone who believes particular things and lives a particular kind of lifestyle. John makes it clear that those who consistently live unrighteously are ipso facto by definition not part of the faith. So why is it illegitimate for me to look at people who claim to be Christians, yet live unrighteous lives, and promote genocide to say that these people aren’t living consistently with the text, therefore you can’t really call them Christians. I think that’s legitimate.

For example, no one would fault the Hippocratic Oath, which is a very rigid standard of conduct for physicians, just because there are doctors who don’t keep it. We wouldn’t say there’s something wrong with the oath, the code that they allegedly follow. We’d say there was something wrong with the individuals who don’t live up to the ideals of that code. That is the case frequently where people waving the Bible in one hand are also waving a bloody sword in the other. The two are inconsistent. So it’s not fair or reasonable to fault the Bible when the person who’s waving the sword is doing things that are contradictory to what the Bible teaches ought to be done.

So that’s the first important thing to remember when you face an objection like this. Distinguish between what a person does and what the code they claim to follow actually asserts. Christianity is one thing, and if we’re going to fault Christianity we must fault its teachings and not fault it because there are people who say they are Christians but then live a life that is totally morally divergent from what Christianity actually teaches.

As I said earlier, this kind of objection falls when you employ a tactic I call “Just the Facts, Ma’am,” and I’d like to give you some of those facts. My assertion as I responded to the gentleman who called last week was simply this, it is true that there are Christians who do evil things. Even take people’s lives. This is an indication that these people aren’t truly Christians, but it may be true also that people with the right heart, but the wrong head do things that are inappropriate, like I think might have been the case in the Salem Witch Trials.

My basic case is that religion doesn’t promote this kind of thing it’s the exception to the rule. The rule actually is that when we remove God from the equation, when we act and live as if we have no one to answer to but ourselves, and if there is not God, then the rule of law is social Darwinism—the strong rule the weak. We’ll find that, quite to the contrary, it is not Christianity and the belief in the God of the Bible that results in carnage and genocide. But it’s when people reject the God of the Bible that we are most vulnerable to those kinds of things that we see in history that are the radical and gross destruction of human lives.

Let’s take the Salem Witchcraft Trials. Apparently, between June and September of 1692 five men and fourteen women were eventually convicted and hanged because English law called for the death penalty for witchcraft (which, incidentally, was the same as the Old Testament). During this time there were over 150 others that were imprisoned. Things finally ended in September 1692 when Governor William Phipps dissolved the court because his wife had been accused. He said enough of this insanity. It was the colony’s leading minister, by the way, who finally ended the witch hunt in 1693 and those that remained in prison were released. The judge that was presiding over the trials publicly confessed his guilt in 1697. By the way, it’s interesting to note that this particular judge was very concerned about the plight of the American Indian and was opposed to slavery. These are views that don’t sit well with the common caricature of the radical Puritans in the witch hunt. In 1711 the colonies legislatures made reparation to the heirs of the victims. They annulled the convictions.

I guess the point is that there was a witch hunt. It was based on theological reasons, but it wasn’t to the extent that is usually claimed. I think last week the caller said it was millions and millions that were burned at the stake as witches. It certainly wasn’t the case in this country. It seemed that the witch hunt was a result of theological misapplication and the people who were involved were penitent. The whole witch hunt lasted only a year. Sixteen people were hanged in New England for witchcraft prior to 1692. In the 1692 witch hunt nineteen were executed. So you’ve got thirty-five people. One hundred fifty imprisoned. This is not at all to diminish or minimize the impact of the American witch hunts which resulted in thirty-five deaths. But thirty-five is not millions. It is not hundreds of thousands. It’s not even hundreds. It’s thirty-five. This was not genocide.

Now in Europe it was a little different. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for practicing witchcraft in 1431. Over a period of 300 years, from 1484 to 1782, the Christian church put to death 300,000 women accused of witchcraft, about 1000 per year. Again, I don’t want to minimize the impact of 1000 lives lost a year, but here we’re talking about a much, much smaller number over a long period of time than what has been claimed in the past.

In America we’re talking thirty-five people. In Europe over 300 years, we’re talking about 300,000. Not millions. The sources here are World Book Encyclopedia ja Encyclopedia Americana. You can also read in Newsweek, August 31, 1992. I was accused of being a liar last week. I’m trying to give you the facts from reputable sources that show that the accusations from last week aren’t accurate.

There were two Inquisitions. One of them began right around the end of the first millennium in 1017. It began as an attempt to root out heretics and occurred chiefly in France, Germany, Italy and Spain. The Spanish Inquisition followed in the fourteenth century and was much bloodier. It began as a feudal aristocracy which forced religious values on society. Jews were caught in the middle of this and many of them were killed. About 2000 executions took place. The Inquisition that took place at the turn of the millennium, less than that. So we’re talking about thousands of people, not millions.

There were actually seven different Crusades and tens of thousands died in them. Most of them were a misdirected attempt to free the Holy Land. Some weren’t quite like that. There were some positive aspects to them, but they were basically an atrocity over a couple hundred years. The worst was the Children’s Crusade. All of the children who went to fight died along the way. Some were shipwrecked and the rest were taken into slavery in Egypt.

A blight on Christianity? Certainty. Something wrong? Dismally wrong. A tragedy? Muidugi. Millions and millions of people killed? No. The numbers are tragic, but pale in comparison to the statistics of what non-religion criminals have committed.

My point is not that Christians or religions people aren’t to vulnerable to terrible crimes. Certainly they are. But it is not religion that produces these things it is the denial of Biblical religion that generally leads to this kind of things. The statistics that are the result of irreligious genocide stagger the imagination.

My source is The Guinness Book of World Records. Look up the category “Judicial” and under the subject of “Crimes: Mass Killings,” the greatest massacre ever imputed by the government of one sovereign against the government of another is 26.3 million Chinese during the regime of Mao Tse Tung between the years of 1949 and May 1965. The Walker Report published by the U.S. Senate Committee of the Judiciary in July 1971 placed the parameters of the total death toll in China since 1949 between 32 and 61.7 million people. An estimate of 63.7 million was published by Figaro magazine on November 5, 1978.

In the U.S.S.R. the Nobel Prize winner, Alexander Solzhenitsyn estimates the loss of life from state repression and terrorism from October 1917 to December 1959 under Lenin and Stalin and Khrushchev at 66.7 million.

Finally, in Cambodia (and this was close to me because I lived in Thailand in 1982 working with the broken pieces of the Cambodian holocaust from 1975 to 1979) “as a percentage of a nation’s total population, the worst genocide appears to be that in Cambodia, formerly Kampuchea. According to the Khmer Rouge foreign minister, more than one third of the eight million Khmer were killed between April 17, 1975 and January 1979. One third of the entire country was put to death under the rule of Pol Pott, the founder of the Communist Part of Kampuchea. During that time towns, money and property were abolished. Economic execution by bayonet and club introduced for such offenses as falling asleep during the day, asking to too many questions, playing non-communist music, being old and feeble, being the offspring of an undesirable, or being too well educated. In fact, deaths in the Tuol Sleng interrogation center in Pnom Penh, which is the capitol of Kampuchea, reached 582 in a day.”

Then in Chinese history of the thirteenth to seventeenth centuries there were three periods of wholesale massacre. The numbers of victims attributed to these events are assertions rather than reliable estimates. The figures put on the Mongolian invasion of northern China form 1210 to 1219 and from 1311 to 1340 are both on the order of 35 million people. While the number of victims of bandit leader Chang Hsien-chung, known as the Yellow Tiger, from 1643 to 1647 in the Sichuan province has been put at over one million people.

China under Mao Tse Tung, 26.3 million Chinese. According the Walker Report, 63.7 million over the whole period of time of the Communist revolution in China. Solzhenitsyn says the Soviet Union put to death 66.7 million people. Kampuchea destroyed one third of their entire population of eight million Cambodians. The Chinese in medieval history, somewhere in the vicinity of 35 million and 40 million people. Ladies and gentlemen, make note that these deaths were the result of organizations or points of view or ideologies that had left God out of the equation. None of these involve religion. And all but the very last actually assert atheism.

It seems to me that my colleague Dennis Prager’s illustration cannot be improved upon to show the self-evident capability of Biblical religion to restrain evil. He asks this in this illustration. If you were walking down a dark street at night in the center of Los Angeles and you saw ten young men walking towards you, would you feel more comfortable if you knew that they had just come from a Bible class? Of course, the answer is certainly you would. That demonstrates that religion, and Biblical religion in particular, is a mitigator of evil in the world.

It is true that it’s possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenants of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We’re talking about tens of millions of people a result of the rejection of God.


Hitler hated Judaism. But he loathed Christianity, too.

At first, Adolf Hitler seemed to accept Christianity.

“In his childhood, Hitler was enthralled by the pomp and ritual of the Catholic Church,” wrote Fritz Redlich in his 1999 biography of the Führer. “Allegedly, for a while he even considered becoming a priest.”

But Hitler, born 130 years ago on April 20, 1889, began rejecting religion as a teenager. He was pulled in different directions by his parents.

His mother, Klara, reportedly the only person Hitler ever loved, was a devout Catholic. His father, Alois, with whom Hitler often fought, thought religion was essentially a scam — a “crutch for human weakness,” as another historian put it.

Hitler järgis oma isa religioosset teed otse kurjakuulutuseks. Ta vihkas judaismi, mõrvates rõõmsalt 6 miljonit juuti. Kuid ta jälestas ka kristlust.

"Hitleri silmis oli kristlus religioon, mis sobib ainult orjadele," kirjutas Alan Bullock "Hitler, A Study in Tyranny". "Ta õpetas, et selle õpetus oli mäss loodusliku valimisseaduse vastu võimekamate võitlusega."