Or: Dawkins, Christianity, and the Nazis. Who belongs to whom?
So, in his efforts to show how religion is really a nasty business (particularly Christianity) Dawkins points out that Hitler was born Roman Catholic, and claims that Nazism is really just a natural offshoot of Christianity. He isn't alone in doing this; uber-atheist Christopher Hitchens does the same.
Why?
Christians get unhappy with being accused of atrocities and having all the world's ills blamed on the their religion (though it isn't the first time they've been accused of being enemies of humanity, the irony of which is hopefully not lost on my readers.) Some Christians point out that we get to see two fairly important atheist regimes at work in the twentieth century, the Nazis and Soviets. Between the two millions were killed, and while this hardly goes to prove that atheists are nasty monsters (the opposite is usually true) it does show that atheists are capable of terrible things.
And that does not satisfy the militant atheist. He is not satisfied with an arguable human equality; he wants his system to be morally superor to his religious counterpart. So, it becomes important to make the counter-claim, palying hot-potato with those nasty Nazis and asserted that they are (keep a straight face) Christian.
The accusation would be laughable if it weren't so terrible. Here these atheists are claiming that Christianity is responsible for the Nazis and the Holocaust when the historical record is that Christians were suffering alongside the Jews, albeit in fewer numbers. No historian in any serious, accredited University, is ever going to claim this. Yet Dawkins and Hitchens do.
So, let's take a look. And bear in mind, it's getting close to final exams so I'm going to lean on other sources a bit. But some of them are pretty fascinating:
Here are pdf reproductions of Nuremburg documents covering the Nazi attack on Christianity and the attempt to replace it with a nationalist, Aryan religion.
Here is an interview with a Vatican official (a Jesuit priest) working on the committee for the canonization of Pope Pius XII. It represents historically demonstrable truth. Of particular interest was the very unusual decision to write an encyclical in German and smuggle it into Germany to be read in Catholic churches across the country.
In the New York Times' editorial of December 25, 1941 we read:
"The voice of Plus Xll is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas... he is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all... the Pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism... he left no doubt that the Nazi aims are also irreconcilable with his own conception of a Christian peace."
And, because too many think the Church just went along with Hitler, and that the Pope was in his pocket, consider this.
I find it frustrating in the extreme (and by that I mean I get over run by rage) when I think of what history shows, and how history is then hijacked by people with their own philosophical agendas, all the while ignoring the immense pain that people in Europe were suffering back then. No one blamed the Church then, the Jews themselves declared Pope Pius XII a righteous man in his day. Who the hell are these people who think they can blame these monstrous acts on those who in some measure shared in a victimhood that is appalling? Certainly no one suffered as the Jews did, but Hitler was ruthless to anyone who opposed him.
So, whatever Nazism was, it didn't come from Christianity. So, where did it come from? That comes tomorrow, with the punchline...
5 comments:
Again, the articles look interesting and when I have some more free time to read them. I have to disagree with your first paragraph Johnson. You say Christians get angry and start throwing out the counter-arguements. I think we, as a whole, dont. A) Most Christians are educated enough about the history of or Church, unless you took Vatican Studies 35 (I speak from a Catholic perspective), and B) If we are educated, we never really defend ourselves. Someone publishes a cartoon against Islam and three embasys are blown up. We as Christians take the accusations solemly and more importantly quietly. In fact, the only system that puts up with B.S. from heathens or heretics more than Christianity is Judaism.
Jeremy W.
That's fair, Jeremy. We don't do a great deal. But does that come from complacency, serenity, or ignorance? Or does it from from the fact that we're a scattered minority in the West without any cohesive awareness? Not sure.
i believe it stems from both these things. but that is not my question.
i read through the little blerby on the pope, and i would like to learn more, for the article itself seemed wanting.
I'm going with Jeremy on this one johnson, the church isn't interested in what people say or do to them, they care about the people within the church. I believe that old people make church intolerable. always looking for faults among their own, its really quite sad.It use to be sit down shut up and bam you were at church you didn't question the peolpe up there cause you didn't have the balls to do it yourself. nowadays People seem to think their better then some of the priests just because they remember the good old days. being part of the church community and not really one to brag i see old people there all the time and they always look pissed off, sure some kid will wear a hat or someones cell phone will go off(even though they tell you like 30 times to turn the damn thing off), but they get mad if someone doesn't walk up the pews fast enough, thats just crazy. i know it doesn't make sense but hell it just makes me all rage filled with mad
Cheyanne, I whish I knew what you were talking about. Are you against old people? For them? Against the Church, or for it? And if you meant "intolerant" then your post becomes a bit more ironic than I can handle. Could you clarify?
Post a Comment