Hitler, Religion, and Morality

[kamani]

If we want to get particular, then according to Christianity the "superior race" is actually the Jews.
-Jesus and the Old/New Testament are Jewish (some say New Testament was written around Greece, but it still talks 90% about Jews).
-In Christian doctrine it is repeated numerous times that the Jews are the Chosen People, the salt of the earth etc.
-Some Christian sects consider one of the functions of baptism that of being adopted into the tribe of Israel.

So how can you love Jesus and the Apostles and hate Jews?! How can you base your identity around a religion that talks about some other people and then hate those people; doesn't that sound like some sort of weird inferiority complex and/or identity theft.
Basically there has been so many layers of BS on top of one another throughout the ages, that it's hard to believe any ideology/philosophy without getting mind fu...

 

[nordicwarrior]

...First, R1* people from North Asia mixed with European people (linked to Y-DNA I) during the Late Upper Palaeolithic...

This is conjecture and should be labelled as such.

 

[LeBrok]

This is an adjustment of your theory that religion was invented for population control: You now state that religion was used as population control tool.

I would surprise myself if I said the former, if I did, I always meant the latter.

However, there are flaws in this theory too. One of the flaws being that religion may indeed have been considered as possible power tool; it hardly served that purpose well.
Let us take Christianity as an example. Christianity was for centuries a resistance religion, a religion fiercely persecuted by the Romans.

My posts were directed at dominant religions being political powerhouses and serving as unifying force behind a leader, making nation united and stronger. I'm not sure why you want to discuss the beginning of christianity, or christianity in particular, when obviously it wasn't in dominant position yet? It was more destructive to unity of Roman Empire or Jewish people than anything.

Once adopted by the local powers it proved hard to control, especially since much of its mythology - the Vitae of saints specifically - cherished the martyrs of that resistance.

It doesn't matter, they died for Christian faith and same god, a very unifying aspect for all faithful. How destructive was the cult of revolutionaries like Lenin of Stalin for unity of Soviet Empire?

Emperors sought to control the church, the church - especially since it considered the empire bequeathed to itself after the fall of the latest West-Roman emperor - sought to control the emperors and both sought to control the popular movements.

Nobody says that relationship between christian church with kings and emperors were perfect, and it doesn't mean it didn't work well for both sides for most of the time. Obviously if a leader of a country is not a head of a church then we have two strong political centers, and a stage for conflicts. In many cases church was richer than kings and was biggest land and property owner in the country. Church controlled politics and kings, and was the controlling and ruling force for the whole society. To avoid this many leaders chose to separate from Vatican and became their church leaders at same time like king of England, Russian Tzar, and many others. In other cases monarchs and bishops realized that both sides gain more if they cooperate. Most of feudal history of Europe shows great cooperation of kings and bishops.
Kings went to war, and the troops were always blessed by priests: "In the name of God and the King". It doesn't matter if it is in Middle Ages, Germany WW2, recent Balkan war or Aztec Empire.

These popular movements that sprung from Christianity were rather revolutionary, as numerous heretical and semi-heretical movements in the Middle Ages show. The novel "The Name of the Rose" may be fiction but Umberto Eco did very good research for it, and you should read it to get an idea of the revolutionary spirit of several christian movements in the second part of the Middle Ages.
As another example may serve Thomas Becket, who was a loyal chancellor of Henry II Plantagenet. Henry appointed him Archbishop of Canterbury - this is the part that you may consider in accordance with your theory that powers try to rule via religion - in the believe that Thomas Beckets loyalty would remain to Henry. However, Thomas Becket found that he now served God rather than the king and became a very vocal moral critic of the king.

Of course religion have many more functions than political, centralized power, and control of populous, although these are more important forces for religions, being such powerful in history of humankind. Most of all, for ordinary citizens it is an outlet for their spirituality (genetic part of faith), to feel god. Furthermore, people go to the temples for social aspect of being and interacting with others, they sing, they pray, they talk intimately with gods about every little thing in life, they ask for help, they thank for everything, ask for good life after death, offer their suffering in good intentions, they ask for forgiveness and acceptance. From psychological point of view it is very therapeutic for any person. Also religious communities act as social net for the most unfortunate or anyone needing help.

if not a distortion, of history.

Can you explain what is the main cause for separation of state and church embedded in our modern constitutions?
Can you give examples from the past when kings went against church, and what were the consequences for them of such actions?
Why so many monarchs chose to become leaders of dominant religions in their countries, in Europe and around the planet?
What happened to king Tut in Egypt when he went against dominant religion?
Should we mention Teutonic Knights, ultimate power, as ruler, warrior, priest, rich land owner, and a spiritual leader.

PS. I'm not saying and never did that christianity as a religion is anything special, better of worse than others, in mentioned aspects, and as dominant religion.
PS. Here is what I mean by Spirituality.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28375-Beliefs-Spirituality-and-why-we-believe

 

[Angela]

I don't want to write a dissertation here, or five separate posts, so I'm just going to respond briefly to a few of the points that have been raised. If someone wants citations, proofs, for each assertion, just ask for it:

@Epoch, I agree with virtually every single word you've written, so some of the following are just additional support for things you've already said.

@Maciamo,
That's not an accurate portrayal of the view of Evolution in Christianity. It's not even an accurate portrayal of the views of the Protestant sects in Christianity. Creationism is the view of certain rather fundamentalist, mostly American Protestant sects. There is absolutely no conflict between evolution and Catholicism. And I mean...NONE. Darwin and astronomy are routinely taught in Catholic schools and universities.

@gyms
An understanding of evolution is not a guarantee that one won't be a racist. Neither is being highly educated, and neither is being a scientist. People can see data from a very bizarre point of view which skews all their judgments. Much of the "scientific racism" that came to dominate Europe was in fact the product of late 19th century anthropologists, biologists, geneticists, and intellectuals from Britain and Germany. Those thinkers were in fact highly influenced by the work of Charles Darwin, from which they took the idea that some groups were more "fit" than others, and deserved to prevail.

Many, many scientists and doctors worked for the Nazis and even in those death camps...merrily taking skull measurements and performing experiments before they sent people off to the gas chamber.

Even today, some people skilled at least in the use of software pursue this branch of science specifically to support an argument about the superiority of "their" group of Europeans at the expense of other groups of Europeans. Let's not ignore the elephant in the room, which is the proliferation of "racial fora". Are we going to pretend that we don't know what they talk about all day?

I've even grown to be skeptical of research that comes from institutions in certain countries. If their interpretation of the data can be seen to have a racist or nationalist slant every single time, something is wrong. It might behoove people to investigate the published ideas of some of the scientists at these institutions as well.

@Kamami,
I think it is to a certain point indeed a case of identity theft. In the beginning there wasn't much difference between the Jewish believers in Christ and the Gentile ones, although the beginning of the tension can be seen in the fact that certain Jewish Christians wanted new followers to become part of the Old Covenant (i.e. undergo circumcision) before they could become part of the New Covenant with baptism. For much of those first centuries, you had Jewish Christian communities, mixed Christian communities, Gentile Christian communities, and the continuing development of what could be called Talmudic Judaism, which rejected not only the divinity of Christ and his status as the Messiah but also rejected him as a prophet.

So, as time went on, more animosity developed...sort of along the lines of how could you reject your own Messiah. Ignorant peasants acting out a Passion Play, with its depictions of the "Jews" shouting crucify him would start the ball rolling. Sometimes, local clergy fanned the flames. The fact that the Jews were the rent collectors for the middle and upper classes, and served as local bankers also came into play. Then, fueled by alcohol and the memory of the debts they owed the Jewish money lenders a couple of streets over, the local peasants proceeded to riot and take all their frustrations out on the Jews.. The local aristocracy, which also owed them a lot of money, sometimes encouraged, or at least did not prevent the riots. It was a nice way to clear the balance sheets.

It's pretty clear to me, anyway, that religious bigotry was only an excuse in many instances or at least just part of the motivation. Look at Spain, for example. The Visigothic rulers, lately barbarians and pagans, repealed many of the previous Roman Empire laws that gave the Jews a certain amount of autonomy and protection. No surprise then that it was claimed that the Jews supported the Saracen invasions. It's certainly true that they became an integral part of Islamic Spain, still treated differently, and suffering higher taxes etc., but safe, and able to participate in the culture. The nationalist Reconquista, whether out of revenge or as part of the stoking up of the kind of nationalistic fever necessary for a war lasting hundreds of years, made the "racial" cleansing of Spain of both Moors and Jews a priority. It was a process that went on for hundreds of years.

The plight of the Jews in northern Europe, whether or not people wish to acknowledge it, had a different flavor from that in the south. I'm by no means saying that Jews were not mistreated in Italy during the Middle Ages, for example. But the wholesale slaughter of the Jews that took place as the Crusades were about to get underway took place predominantly in the Rhineland. It was this mass slaughter, this barbaric burning of whole groups of men, women and children in their synagogues, or drowning them in wells, that created the bottle-necked population known as the Ashkenazim. Even in World War II, there were only certain areas where extermination camps could be built. Certain populations would not, in my opinion, have tolerated them, as the Nazis themselves admitted.

Perhaps some of the blame lies in the over-regulated, authoritarian nature of certain northern European societies...the group think that can become such a big part of these kinds of cultures. However, I think some of it can also be attributed to the fact that certain cultures emphasize more strongly than others the "oneness" of the large cultural group...which of course leads to more marginalization and mistreatment of "the other". In fact, identification as part of the group is built precisely in terms of "the other".

The other part of the pattern lies in the kind of Nordic myths that were so admired at the time. Just read them, or the lyrics to Wagner's operas. There's a reason why the Nazis wanted to promote them.

Finally, I think that the actions of the Nazis and their plans for Europe make crystal clear that the root of their anti-semitism had almost nothing to do with historical religious anti-Semitism. Just look at what they did to the Gypsies. That had nothing to do with religion. Most telling, investigators after the war found detailed plans to put into effect the mass extermination of the Slavs once they were finished with the Jews, gypsies and homosexuals. The goal was to free those vast plains for the industrious German people. "Land to live" It was permitted because Slavs too were seen as a lower breed of human. The irony in the fact that there is such a proliferation of neo-Nazi groups in eastern Europe is profound. Do they not know this? Or is this some pathetic attempt to prove that the Nazis were wrong about them? Bizarre in any case.

@gyms,
Obviously, I'm not very impressed by Jerome formulation of the issue. In most cases, I think it simplifies an extremely complex phenomenon. In the case of the Romans and Greeks I believe he just out and out got it wrong through a fundamental misunderstanding of Roman religion, or, indeed, the Hellenistic religions of the classical era. In both the case of the Hellenistic rulers of the Middle East, and the later Roman rulers, worship of the gods was tantamount to worship of the state. No one expected the populace to literally believe in the state religion in any spiritual sense, but they did expect token worship as an affirmation of allegiance to the polity. The stubborn Jews were the only organized group...until the emergence of one of their sects, Christianity, that refused to bend. In the name of their "One God" they placed their heads on the block by revolting first against their Hellenized rulers and then against the Romans. There was nothing ethnic or racial about the wars against them. It was just business...political business in this case.

 

[epoch]

Can you explain what is the main cause for separation of state and church embedded in our modern constitutions?

Mark 12:17 ;P

On a serious note: You are a Canadian, and perhaps thus inclined to think that modern nations need separation of state and church in their constitution, as in the American constitution. While it has been quite important that the power of Rome over politics needed to be broken it may come as a surprise to you that the Scandinavian countries that served earlier as examples of well designed societies abolished state churches only in the last 15 years.

The initial idea was already alive during Roman times. When Rome became a republic it separated ius humana from ius divinia, and justice was spoken by judges rather than priests. That was done to make society run smoothly. That whole Roman concept of statehood was kept alive during the Middle Ages and in the renaissance. It was not an invention of Enlightenment, even if they championed it.

Can you give examples from the past when kings went against church, and what were the consequences for them of such actions?

Charles Martel confiscated one third of church property to secure the support of hardened warriors in his fight against the Saracenes. He won.
The Ottones appointed bishops in their empire on the premise that they were electors. At first they won, soon they lost.
Emperor Henry IV's walk to Canosse. He lost. Badly.
Henry Tudor broke away from Rome. He won.
The German princes during the 30 year war. They basically became the rules of their own realm (Cuius regio, eius religio) so they won, but at a horrible price.

Why so many monarchs chose to become leaders of dominant religions in their countries, in Europe and around the planet?

In Europe to break free from the political influence of the church of Rome.

What happened to king Tut in Egypt when he went against dominant religion?

I reckon we talk Achnaton? He lost. Allthough we don't quite know why he lost the popular vote.

Should we mention Teutonic Knights, ultimate power, as ruler, warrior, priest, rich land owner, and a spiritual leader.

But they didn't *rule* the Jerusalem kingdom. That kingdom, that was quite tolerant to it's muslim inhabitants, even hung a few because of their fanaticism.

Of course religion have many more functions than political, centralized power, and control of populous, although these are more important forces for religions, being such powerful in history of humankind. Most of all, for ordinary citizens it is an outlet for their spirituality (genetic part of faith), to feel god. Furthermore, people go to the temples for social aspect of being and interacting with others, they sing, they pray, they talk intimately with gods about every little thing in life, they ask for help, they thank for everything, ask for good life after death, offer their suffering in good intentions, they ask for forgiveness and acceptance. From psychological point of view it is very therapeutic for any person. Also religious communities act as social net for the most unfortunate or anyone needing help.

Exactly my point.

EDIT: One further point

Most of feudal history of Europe shows great cooperation of kings and bishops.

Not exactly. There indeed were times, such as during Pippinids, when this was true. But mostly the worldly rulers sought to break the church's power. If not by appointing bishops, then by supported anti-popes. There is a fascinating castle in Avignon that was a result of that.

 

[Sile]

I have been to over 50 countries, lived in 9, including Japan, and I cannot think of any national, regional or cultural group more honest, kind and altruistic than the Japanese. Yet almost all Japanese are Atheists. There are two official "religions" in Japan, Buddhism and Shintoism, but neither has any concept of personal god or heaven like in monotheistic religions, and neither have any religious dogma or moral code. Japanese people receive no religious education at school either. Yet that does not prevent Japanese society to be one of the safest in the world, despite the fact that they have very big cities and high population densities, two factors that usually correlate with increased violence in other countries. Japan is a perfect example that people can be good to each others and peaceful without any help from moralistic religions like Christianity or Islam.

In Europe the most peaceful countries are Scandinavian countries, which also happen to be the least religious.

In the USA, the most violent states are usually also the most religious (Bible Belt). Louisiana, Mississipi, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas and Georgia make up most of the states with the highest murder rates. These are exactly the 7 most religious US States according to a Gallup poll. In contrast, the states with the lowest murder rates also happen to be the least religious (Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon). Still convinced that Christianity bring peace on Earth ?

it is said that in Japan people are born with the religion of shintoism and die under buddhism. reason is Shinto has no after life. So people want an after-life and decide to change to buddhism.

 

[Sile]

Under the Abrahamic Religions sit only , Christians, Moslems and Jews. Under their agreement these are noted as the only true religions, the rest are classified as Pagans ( buddha, hindu, shinto etc and ancient religions ). These Abrahamic Religions have been "fighting" to cleanse the world of these Pagans since ancient times.
The issue is the division and terminology.
Judaism should have moved over once Jesus appeared, and then Christians should have moved over over Mohammed appeared..........this is what the Islamics think ( they refer to Jesus as a messenger, like Mohammed , not as a son of god). This is what the "current religious war" is all about.

In regards to Aryan, as discussed on another thread, Hitler sent an expedition to Tibet ( Buddhism ) in 1936 to 1939 to discover if Aryans are basically buddists and with this declare an aryan people void of the current religions in Germany . With this finding he would have a means of replacing the Abrahamic religions of Europe and rule without religious pressures.

 

[LeBrok]

Mark 12:17 ;P

On a serious note: You are a Canadian, and perhaps thus inclined to think that modern nations need separation of state and church in their constitution, as in the American constitution. While it has been quite important that the power of Rome over politics needed to be broken it may come as a surprise to you that the Scandinavian countries that served earlier as examples of well designed societies abolished state churches only in the last 15 years.

The initial idea was already alive during Roman times. When Rome became a republic it separated ius humana from ius divinia, and justice was spoken by judges rather than priests. That was done to make society run smoothly. That whole Roman concept of statehood was kept alive during the Middle Ages and in the renaissance. It was not an invention of Enlightenment, even if they championed it.

The idea of separation is not new, and it was always in favour when more need for tolerance was sighted as a positive force, as in modern countries of today. It doesn't negate the fact that dominant religion was always embraced to strengthen power of rulers, and unite nation behind them. Religion is a powerful force, it would be stupid for a ruler not to use it for an advantage. Of course as long as it is one dominant religion. It doesn't work in multi religious context without one being overwhelmingly dominant.

Charles Martel confiscated one third of church property to secure the support of hardened warriors in his fight against the Saracenes. He won.
The Ottones appointed bishops in their empire on the premise that they were electors. At first they won, soon they lost.
Emperor Henry IV's walk to Canosse. He lost. Badly.
Henry Tudor broke away from Rome. He won.
The German princes during the 30 year war. They basically became the rules of their own realm (Cuius regio, eius religio) so they won, but at a horrible price.
I reckon we talk Achnaton? He lost. Allthough we don't quite know why he lost the popular vote.

In Europe to break free from the political influence of the church of Rome.

Not exactly. There indeed were times, such as during Pippinids, when this was true. But mostly the worldly rulers sought to break the church's power. If not by appointing bishops, then by supported anti-popes. There is a fascinating castle in Avignon that was a result of that

These examples show how rich and powerful church was, and that it was easier to rule having church behind than against. Rulers were not against religion, but in many cited by you cases, not fond of foreign influence of Rome. They didn't only cut Rome off, but also conveniently made themselves a religious leaders to strengthen their position and wealth. What could have been more important reason of doing so?
They were all crowned by highest religious ranks of their churches to show people that god is with them and where their power comes from. A very convenient custom to legitimize themselves in eyes of ordinary people, the believers of same faith. We also have many examples of princes going in rugs on pilgrimage to Rome to beg Pope for forgiveness. Without church blessing they couldn't become kings.

Simple logic goes like this:
Since way back, dominant religions exerted strong political power, they influenced and commanded millions of believers. On top of it they were also the richest land and property owners, with tremendous economic power. It is only logical to conclude that in majority of cases rulers wanted to have such powerful organization on their side, isn't it? To the degree that in many cases these two powerful forces united under one leadership.
It is also understandable that sometimes (knowing human nature) this relationship was difficult, and if it got really sauer it lead to domestic war and ruin of a country. Other than that it was always in interest of both parties to support each other in leading the united populous and stay in power.

I would like to stress that it was only the case for countries with one dominant religion.

But they didn't *rule* the Jerusalem kingdom. That kingdom, that was quite tolerant to it's muslim inhabitants, even hung a few because of their fanaticism.

Then they showed their true tolerance in Prussia, where they didn't need to share a country with other strong powers.

 

[Baltic tribes]

In regards to Aryan, as discussed on another thread, Hitler sent an expedition to Tibet ( Buddhism ) in 1936 to 1939 to discover if Aryans are basically buddists and with this declare an aryan people void of the current religions in Germany . With this finding he would have a means of replacing the Abrahamic religions of Europe and rule without religious pressures.[/QUOTE]

The first sentence is correct. Sorry, but the rest is your assumption. He neither send anyone specifically to Tibet nor was his intention to replace something.
I like that film "7 years in Tibet" too. But Hollywood movies rarely reflect facts.

 

[Sile]

In regards to Aryan, as discussed on another thread, Hitler sent an expedition to Tibet ( Buddhism ) in 1936 to 1939 to discover if Aryans are basically buddists and with this declare an aryan people void of the current religions in Germany . With this finding he would have a means of replacing the Abrahamic religions of Europe and rule without religious pressures.

The first sentence is correct. Sorry, but the rest is your assumption. He neither send anyone specifically to Tibet nor was his intention to replace something.
I like that film "7 years in Tibet" too. But Hollywood movies rarely reflect facts.[/QUOTE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938–39_German_expedition_to_Tibet

There have been allegations that one of the expedition's purposes was to determine whether Tibet was the cradle of the Aryan race. The taking of cranial measurements and making of facial casts of local people by anthropologist Bruno Beger did little to dissipate the allegations.^[29]

 

[gyms]

A Christian martyr is a person who is killed for following Christianity, through stoning, crucifixion, burning at the stake or other forms of torture and capital punishment. The word "martyr" comes from the Greek word μάρτυς, mártys, which means "witness."
At first, the term applied to Apostles.^[1] Once Christians started to undergo persecution, the term came to be applied to those who suffered hardships for their faith.^[1] Finally, it was restricted to those who had been killed for their faith.

Atheist humanism!
.

 

[toyomotor]

Hitler was not a devout christian and certainly not an ally of the Vatican. In februari 1931 the German bishops issued an edict that excommunicated leaders and members of the NSDAP. Read Ian Kershaw's book "Hitler" on it. Hint of the fierce struggle between can be found in Kershaws article for Der Spiegel on how Hitler won over the Germans:

http://www.spiegel.de/international...tler-won-over-the-german-people-a-531909.html

The rift between Catholics and National-Socialists can even be seen in this map 1932 showing election results. It basically is a map of religions in Germany.

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1081636,00.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Verbreitung_der_Konfessionen_im_deutschen_Reich.jpg

No, Hitler was not an ally of the Vatican, but during WW2, the Vatican was an ally of Hitler. There are many examples of Nazi soldiers working in and with the full co-operation of the Vatican, including the infamous "Rat Line" which provided avenues of shelter and escape for Nazi War Criminals. In fact, I'm surprised that Hitler and the words Religion, and Morality could be used on the same page.

 

[MagnusAurelius]

Hitler was an occultist and also believed in a lot of alternative theories in addition to hidden knowledge etc.

 

[leohamb010]

As a matter of fact, Hitler was a dedicated christian who regularly said that he was "accomplishing the Lord's work". I realize christians are by and large willfully ignorant regarding that, however it turns out to be valid. I'm surely not saying that Hitler was a normal christian - he wasn't. Yet, he viewed himself as christian.

 

[Joey37]

I simply must respond to the level of ignorance shown by the above poster, trying to attribute absolute anti-Christian filth to the religion simply because they don't like it (in most cases because they are self-centered individuals who demand others approve of whatever outré lifestyle they have); merely saying you are a Christian does not make you one, you have to live like one. I could say I was a shark, but unless I spend all my time in water, breathe through gills, and eat seals with my sharp teeth, no one would believe me, as they should. Hitler was no Christian, although there were many believers in faulty doctrine who abetted him.

 

[Tristan Seitz]

Absolutely agree with you, i have read so much information about Hitler.

 

[Wolf87]

Christianity itself is alien to Europe.