Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Andy Walker

Religion and Politics

Recommended Posts

Well I certainly agree there were atrocities and horrors commited in the name of Christianity.

And it is incredible that only a few hundreds of years ago Catholics and Protestants would kill each other over doctrines such as transubstitution (not being a Catholic I am sure I spelled it wrong).

Years ago "evangelization" was often become a Christian or we will kill you".

One cannot deny such things, of course.

But I repeat the fascists were not Christians!

Clearly depends on one's definition of 'Christian'. It's pretty easy to say something like "oh look at what they did! They're not Christians, no matter what they might have said".

At that point the whole debate fails to exist. No leader I can think of, regardless of professed status as christian or other or non religion, would meet the criteria of being christian.

You might as well call people in the Labour Party socialists!

Marx wrote:

"The foundation of irreligious criticism is this: man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is indeed the self-consciousness and self-awareness of man who either has not yet attained to himself or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man, the state, society. This state, this society produces religion's inverted attitude towards the world, because they are an inverted world themselves. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in a popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, its universal basis for consolation and justification. It is the imaginary realization of the human essence, because the human essence possesses no true reality. Thus, the struggle against religion is indirectly the struggle against the world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, it is the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of a soulless condition. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. The demand to give up illusions about their condition is a demand to give up a condition that requires illusion. The criticism of religion is therefore the germ of the valley of tears whose halo is religion."

An analysis from David L. Morgan - THE METAPHYSICS AND PHENOMENOLOGY OF RELIGION

"In this passage we see Marx describing religion as far more than an attempt to escape a miserable existence. It is equally a powerful description of and protest against this existence. The history of religions - including Christianity - is a history of protest. The Old Testament describes the protest of the ancient Hebrews against their enslavement by the Egyptians and their struggle for their liberation. This account also inspired Black slaves in the pre-Civil War American South who sought escape from their bondage. It also inspired the modern civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King and others. The message of the Gospel narrative includes Jesus condemning the rich and upholding the cause of the poor. Contemporary Liberation Theology, popular in Latin America and elsewhere, upholds this Gospel tradition. Thus while religion may at times serve as an escape, it clearly also serves a powerful motivator and transformer of people's lives. In the final paragraph quoted above we seek Marx declaring that the focus of any attack on religion must be diverted to an attack on the oppressive and unfulfilling conditions of existence which give rise to the need for religion. Thus for Marx, religion is truly oppressive when it becomes a device for upholding an oppressive status quo. Yet, as we have seen religion can also contain a revolutionary message of criticism and liberation.

Marx and Freud suggest that ultimately religion will disappear in a society in which science rules or in which oppression is absent, or both. Of course, we can ask whether even in such a world would not something like religious hope still function? Much of religion speaks to our mortality and finitude, characteristics that are likely to persist in spite of progress in the scientific and social spheres."

and with the following in mind: Wolff, Jonathan, "Karl Marx", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2003 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2003/entries/marx/>.

"It is interesting to read Marx here in the light of his third Thesis on Feuerbach where he indicates how it will not happen. The crude materialism of Robert Owen and others assumes that you can change people by changing their circumstances. However, how are those circumstances to be changed? By an enlightened philanthropist like Owen who can miraculously break through the chain of determination which ties down everyone else? Marx's response, in both the Theses and the Critique, is that the proletariat can break free only by their own self-transforming action. Indeed if they do not create the revolution for themselves — guided, of course, by the philosopher — they will not be fit to receive it."

So, while a-theist communists (as opposed to a-theist anti-communists) view 'religion as an opiate' a subtler understanding of this 'misquote' can be had. Marx was initially responding to an anti-semitic comment. He recognised the value of progressive religions, and argued that once a truly rational society is achieved, religion will naturally fade away. To me the essence of christianity deals with 'mortality and finitude, characteristics that are likely to persist in spite of progress in the scientific and social spheres.'

"...for Marx, religion is truly oppressive when it becomes a device for upholding an oppressive status quo. Yet, as we have seen religion can also contain a revolutionary message of criticism and liberation."

It is in the interest of the progressive left and the progressive liberation theologians to recognise each other. Both recognise the value of education as an antidote to oppression. The left that hammers at religious freedom only set the stage for an incomplete liberation and thus are themselves reactionary. Christians trust that jesus provides a true response to essential human spiritual condition, The progressive left trust that in time an educated people will naturally divest itself of opiates. Intolerance is a sign of lack of this trust and hence doubt re. their dogma, which is a good thing.

Edited by John Dolva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However discussion about religion and atheism seems to become a discussion about christianity and rationality.

You're right John, that's what it is all about except that you could take instead of christianity any other belief

depending where such a forum is running. If this forum would be in Saudi Arabia we sure would have a dicussion about Islam and rationality but what would that change?

George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However discussion about religion and atheism seems to become a discussion about christianity and rationality.

You're right John, that's what it is all about except that you could take instead of christianity any other belief

depending where such a forum is running. If this forum would be in Saudi Arabia we sure would have a dicussion about Islam and rationality but what would that change?

George

Just as there are people like bush who claims to be christians, there are no doubt atheists who claim to have once believed in god. What is almost always true is that christians have once not believed in god.

It is not hard for a christian to accept that a rational attitude of someone who has chosen not to believe in god should be an atheist, after all, as rational beings they almost all at one point have been one? The world that is experienced by someone choosing to believe is nevertheless real. It's probably absurd for an atheist to think that they through reason can understand this world.

I think, however, that it would be beneficial to all to see one try.

EDIT :: I wrote "However discussion about religion and atheism seems to become a discussion about christianity and rationality.The problem that this becomes is that for those who choose to believe in jesus are assumed to be arguing for the irrational aspects of any religion." As a christian I obviously have reasons to believe that christianity IS rational, while religions often lose their rational aspects in servicing earthly attachments such as hierachy and posessions. Such things are best left to society as a whole to nut out.

Edited by John Dolva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dafydd:

I believe Hitler subscribed to bizarre occult religious beliefs.

It is absolutely incredible that you would call Hitler and Eichmnan Christians! What was your basis for this? To call people who tried to exterminate God's chosden people Christians is a damnable lie!!

Do you have any idea how many Christians risked (and often sacrificed) their lives to save Jews?

Have you ever heard of Dietrich Bonhoffer, a very prominent Christian theologist who re-entered Germany and gave up his life to stop Hitler? He was executed by the Nazis. I would strongly encourage you (and everyone) to read Bonhoffer's story and his book "The Cost of Discipleship". The cost of his discipleship to Christ was his life, taken by the tyrants you called Christians!

Hitler's religion?

John Gunther wrote:

He was born and brought up a Roman Catholic. But he lost faith early and he attends no religious services of any kind. His Catholicism means nothing to him; he is impervious even to the solace of confession. On being formed his government almost immediately began a fierce religious war against Catholics, Protestants, and Jews alike.

Hitler was not a Christian but that of course does not make him an atheist. What we do know is that Hitler joined forces with the Christian Church in order to gain power. German fascists, like you Tim, were passionately anti-communist. After the First World War German socialists and communist came close to gaining power in Germany This worried Christian leaders and they were therefore willing to work with the fascists in order to prevent the left taking control.

This was especially true of the Catholic Centre Party (BVP). Formed in 1871 it originally the party sought to defend Catholic interests against the predominantly Protestant policies of Otto von Bismarck. However, it later became more concerned with the growth of socialism and communism in Germany.

By 1930 it was the third largest party in Germany: Socialists (143), Nazis (107) and BVP (87). In the November 1932 election the Nazi’s won 196 seats. However, they still did not hold a majority as the Socialists won 121 and the Communists 100. To form a government Hitler had to invite the BVP to join his government and its leader, Franz von Papen became vice-chancellor. On 23rd March, 1933, all members of the BVP in the Reichstag voted for the Enabling Bill which gave Hitler dictatorial powers.

Without the support of the Catholic Church, Hitler could never have gained power. After taking dictatorial powers Hitler arrested all left-wing and trade union activists and placed them into concentration camps.

The Protestant nor the Catholic Church complained about this. Nor did they make a fuss about the persecution of the Jews. You mentioned Dietrich Bonhoffer but he was working in London in the early 1930s.

The Christian resistance towards the Nazis began in 1934. However, it had nothing to do with the persecution of Jews and Socialists. It started over the Hitler’s appointment of Ludwig Muller, as the country's Reich Bishop of the Protestant Church. With the support of Karl Barth, a professor of theology at Bonn University, in May, 1934, these rebel pastors formed what became known as the Confessional Church. Some of these did begin arguing against anti-Semitism but this was not their primary concern. It was the formation of the Confessional Church that brought Dietrich Bonhoffer back to Germany.

Martin Niemöller, a member of the Nazi Party, who joined the Confessional Church, explained the situation in Germany in his famous poem that was written in 1946.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;

Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;

Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.

The Christian Church had a terrible record in Germany during the 1930s. All the major leaders decided not to take a stand against Nazism. The Catholic Church had the worst record of all.

Pope Pius XII refused to speak out against the atrocities being carried out in Nazi Germany. Nor did he do anything to save the Jews in Rome. He also refused the request of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in September 1942 to denounce the Nazi persecution of the Jews in Europe.

Pius XII was also criticised for his failure to act in Croatia during the Second World War. Croatia, a Catholic state, was responsible for the killing of 487,000 Orthodox Serbs, 27,000 Gypsies and around 30,000 Jews between 1941 and 1945.

For more information on this subject see:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERchristianity.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERcentre.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERpiusX2.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I must have missed something. I thought Tim was saying, in reply to Daffyd, that he had read that Hitler was atheist. What does that have to do with the admittedly dark record of all churches, including my own, in collaborating with Hitler? Does that make him a Christian? You've lost me somewhere along the line.

Tim did make a good point in observing that many Christian did oppose Hitler, even to the extent of sacrificing their own lives. Many of them did so from the standpoint of their religious beliefs.

Hitler's personal beliefs were, I believe, somewhat bizarre, being a mixture of Norse mythological folk religion and some sort of Mother Earth thing. Certainly they were in no way Christian.

Mussolini was even more forthright in his rejection of the whole concept of God and frequently declared himself an atheist, despite signing the Lateran Pacts with the pope.

I understand that it makes a lovely debating point to say that Bush proclaims his Christianity and is bad therefore Hitler, since he was bad, must also have been a fundamentalist Christian, but it's hardly good history....

By the way, I was recently threatened with excommunication from the Forum for having failed to provide a photograph. I note that there are STILL some contributors to this debate who remain photoless. Is this another example of some pigs being more equal than others, or is it a "politcal conspiracy"? I think we should be told!

Edited by mike tribe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the absense of the forum this week my students came up with the following questions they would like members to consider:

"Is it better for our political leaders to believe in God than to be agnostics or atheists?"

I would prefer my 'leader' if I must have one to be rational therefore not to believe in any god. There are simply far too many examples of the terrible consequences of organised religion to believe otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who have an interest in understanding who the people in Germany that helped the Holocaust victims, the following is a contribution:

http://ehsli.org/publish.php?page=publish&option=7

"Who were the rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe and why did they do what they did? Why would anyone put his or her own life in danger for the sake of someone who was a stranger?

Social psychologist Eva Fogelman sought to find the answers. Fogelman, a founding director of the Jewish Foundation for Christian Rescuers and co-director of Psychotherapy with Generations of the Holocaust and Related Traumas, wanted to know whether there were factors held in common by those who saved Jews. She wondered if the rescuers were a particular nationality, social class, religion, political affiliation or gender.

No, is her answer.

Some were intensely religious, others atheists, and others non-practicing Christians. Rescuers came from all classes and occupations -- farmers, executives, doctors, blacksmiths, social workers, dressmakers. Gender and politics were not factors either.

So, if none of these were determinants, what was?

Character, she says.

'[it was not] just a haphazard collection of individuals who chanced to rescue Jews, but people who have surprisingly similar humanistic values. It was not a whim that led these people to risk their lives and those of their families, but a response . . . that came from core values developed and instilled in them in childhood,' Fogelman said at a speech at an Amnesty International Chapter on Long Island.

As children they experienced one or more of the following: a nurturing, loving home; an altruistic parent or beloved caretaker; a tolerance for people who were different; a childhood illness or loss that tested their resilience; an emphasis upon independence, discipline with explanations, and caring.

The values they shared were altruism, independence of mind and respect for differences among people. As children, the rescuers were taught these principles as part of daily living. "This made virtue a habit," says Fogelman. She tells us that the parents of some of the rescuers had involved them in helping others by bringing food to a sick person or sleeping over at a house where a neighbor was about to give birth and her husband was not there.

Fogelman says, "Learned altruistic behavior, seeing all people as equals, gave the rescuers the ability to transcend the propaganda against the Jews and to see them as human beings just like themselves. They took the responsibility to help because they knew that unless they did something that person would die." "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gavin wrote:

I would prefer my 'leader' if I must have one to be rational therefore not to believe in any god.

Gavin, it is completely irrational of you to believe that a rational person cannot believe in God!

Intended as a separate post; annoying to me that this can apparently no longer be done.

John wrote:

"German fascists, like you Tim, were passionately anti-communist." {emphasis supplied.}

What in the world is this remark supposed to mean? That if a person is a passionate anti-Communist he or she is philosophically close to German fascists? If that is what you mean, it constitutes one of the more absurd comments you have ever made (and considering the absurdity of many of your comments, that is saying something!).

And as you know there was a temporary alliance between Hitler and Stalin.

Hitler and Stalin were both bloodthirsty tyrants. It is shame democratic countries had to unite with Stalin's Soviet Union to defeat Hitler. To me, that is similar to the morality of the CIA partnering with the Mafia in an attempt to kill Castro. Stalin had no more morality than one of the Mafia killers.

And by the way can we infer from your sentence that you were not a passionate anti-communist? I have never called you a communist (and do not do so now) but it is rare to ever see you criticizing any communist regime so it would be easy to assume that you were (are?) at least sympathetic to communism.

Edited by Tim Gratz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hitler and Stalin were both bloodthirsty tyrants.

At this point, in order to stop sounding like some uneducated ranter, one would provide evidence (non-CIA) of Stalin being 'bloodthirsty'.

It is shame democratic countries had to unite with Stalin's Soviet Union to defeat Hitler.

The USA and the UK are/were NOT democracies, and lagged a long way behind the USSR in democratic principles.

To me, that is similar to the morality of the CIA partnering with the Mafia in an attempt to kill Castro. Stalin had no more morality than one of the Mafia killers.

You are spiralling now, and your saxophone is out of tune.

And by the way can we infer from your sentence that you were not a passionate anti-communist? I have never called you a communist (and do not do so now) but it is rare to ever see you criticizing any communist regime so it would be easy to assume that you were (are?) at least sympathetic to communism.

Thank you Senator McCarthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For those who have an interest in understanding who the people in Germany that helped the Holocaust victims, the following is a contribution:

http://ehsli.org/publish.php?page=publish&option=7

"Who were the rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe and why did they do what they did? Why would anyone put his or her own life in danger for the sake of someone who was a stranger?

Social psychologist Eva Fogelman sought to find the answers. Fogelman, a founding director of the Jewish Foundation for Christian Rescuers and co-director of Psychotherapy with Generations of the Holocaust and Related Traumas, wanted to know whether there were factors held in common by those who saved Jews. She wondered if the rescuers were a particular nationality, social class, religion, political affiliation or gender.

No, is her answer.

Some were intensely religious, others atheists, and others non-practicing Christians. Rescuers came from all classes and occupations -- farmers, executives, doctors, blacksmiths, social workers, dressmakers. Gender and politics were not factors either.

So, if none of these were determinants, what was?

Character, she says.

'[it was not] just a haphazard collection of individuals who chanced to rescue Jews, but people who have surprisingly similar humanistic values. It was not a whim that led these people to risk their lives and those of their families, but a response . . . that came from core values developed and instilled in them in childhood,' Fogelman said at a speech at an Amnesty International Chapter on Long Island.

As children they experienced one or more of the following: a nurturing, loving home; an altruistic parent or beloved caretaker; a tolerance for people who were different; a childhood illness or loss that tested their resilience; an emphasis upon independence, discipline with explanations, and caring.

The values they shared were altruism, independence of mind and respect for differences among people. As children, the rescuers were taught these principles as part of daily living. "This made virtue a habit," says Fogelman. She tells us that the parents of some of the rescuers had involved them in helping others by bringing food to a sick person or sleeping over at a house where a neighbor was about to give birth and her husband was not there.

Fogelman says, "Learned altruistic behavior, seeing all people as equals, gave the rescuers the ability to transcend the propaganda against the Jews and to see them as human beings just like themselves. They took the responsibility to help because they knew that unless they did something that person would die." "

Thank you for that John. Highly enlightening. Much of my website concerns resistance to tyrannical governments. In fact, I have spent much of my life researching this area of history. My views on the subject mirror those above.

It is true that individual Christians have often played an important role in this resistance. However, just as many atheists took part in this resistance. You can see this by studying the biographies of these people who resisted racial prejudice in Germany, Europe and the United States.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERresistance.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWresistance.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FRresist.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcivilrights.htm

When you study government led racial discrimination in places like Germany, South Africa and the United States, one of the things that strikes you is the way the established Church supports this persecution. When Christians do resist they do it as individuals or as part of a non-conformist tradition. In the cases of South Africa and the United States, so-called Christians were at the forefront of this persecution.

The reason for this is that Christian belief is highly adaptable. In all cases, it has adapted to political, economic and cultural factors and has therefore become part of the dominant ideology. Although I have a great deal of admiration for individual Christians, I have no respect for the established Church. The history of the 20th century reveals that Christianity is part of the problem and not the solution.

Over the last few years the established Church in Europe (but not the United States) has made an attempt to stand up for the poor and oppressed. However, it is far too late. It failed when it mattered in Germany, South Africa and the United States. The sad fact is that most Christians are more like Tim Gratz than Martin Luther King.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dafydd wrote:

The USA and the UK are/were NOT democracies, and lagged a long way behind the USSR in democratic principles.

This is the single most preposterous statement I have ever read on this Forum, and that says a lot! It is absolutely unbelievable!!

Who elected Stalin? I know who elected Churchill and Roosevelt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dafydd wrote:

The USA and the UK are/were NOT democracies, and lagged a long way behind the USSR in democratic principles.

This is the single most preposterous statement I have ever read on this Forum, and that says a lot! It is absolutely unbelievable!!

Who elected Stalin? I know who elected Churchill and Roosevelt.

In Roosevelt's case that would be the highly representative 'Electoral College' that did so, not the population of the USA. However, perhaps you mean Teddy rather than Frankie-Baby. Please expand.

Could you tell me who elected Churchill in 1940?

BTW Stalin was not 'leader' of the USSR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gavin wrote:

I would prefer my 'leader' if I must have one to be rational therefore not to believe in any god.

Gavin, it is completely irrational of you to believe that a rational person cannot believe in God!

Intended as a separate post; annoying to me that this can apparently no longer be done.

If a leader can make such an irrational decision to believe in a god what other irrational decisions are they capable of? This is my point. If they are devoutly religious then many of their decisions and actions are therefore grounded in irrationality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
("The world will be happy when the last priest is strangled in the guts of the last aristocrat" Jacques Roux)

Thanks to Mike for the source of that remark which I have used without acknowledgement in the past.

Religion was used extensively both by the aristocracy as a justification for their divine rights and by the corporations in their quest for profits in the third world. This is briefly summarised in the phrase, "when the white man came to Africa he had the bible and we owned all of the land. We closed our eyes in prayer and found that we had the bible and he owned most of the land." An idea so commonplace it has been attributed to a number of African liberation movements.

And Bush and Blair will use their religious faith as a justification for pinching Iraq's oil and when it suits them they will use their personal version of "democracy" for the same ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who have an interest in understanding who the people in Germany that helped the Holocaust victims, the following is a contribution:

http://ehsli.org/publish.php?page=publish&option=7

"Who were the rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe and why did they do what they did? Why would anyone put his or her own life in danger for the sake of someone who was a stranger?

Social psychologist Eva Fogelman sought to find the answers. Fogelman, a founding director of the Jewish Foundation for Christian Rescuers and co-director of Psychotherapy with Generations of the Holocaust and Related Traumas, wanted to know whether there were factors held in common by those who saved Jews. She wondered if the rescuers were a particular nationality, social class, religion, political affiliation or gender.

No, is her answer.

Some were intensely religious, others atheists, and others non-practicing Christians. Rescuers came from all classes and occupations -- farmers, executives, doctors, blacksmiths, social workers, dressmakers. Gender and politics were not factors either.

So, if none of these were determinants, what was?

Character, she says.

'[it was not] just a haphazard collection of individuals who chanced to rescue Jews, but people who have surprisingly similar humanistic values. It was not a whim that led these people to risk their lives and those of their families, but a response . . . that came from core values developed and instilled in them in childhood,' Fogelman said at a speech at an Amnesty International Chapter on Long Island.

As children they experienced one or more of the following: a nurturing, loving home; an altruistic parent or beloved caretaker; a tolerance for people who were different; a childhood illness or loss that tested their resilience; an emphasis upon independence, discipline with explanations, and caring.

The values they shared were altruism, independence of mind and respect for differences among people. As children, the rescuers were taught these principles as part of daily living. "This made virtue a habit," says Fogelman. She tells us that the parents of some of the rescuers had involved them in helping others by bringing food to a sick person or sleeping over at a house where a neighbor was about to give birth and her husband was not there.

Fogelman says, "Learned altruistic behavior, seeing all people as equals, gave the rescuers the ability to transcend the propaganda against the Jews and to see them as human beings just like themselves. They took the responsibility to help because they knew that unless they did something that person would die." "

Thank you for that John. Highly enlightening. Much of my website concerns resistance to tyrannical governments. In fact, I have spent much of my life researching this area of history. My views on the subject mirror those above.

It is true that individual Christians have often played an important role in this resistance. However, just as many atheists took part in this resistance. You can see this by studying the biographies of these people who resisted racial prejudice in Germany, Europe and the United States.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERresistance.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWresistance.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FRresist.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcivilrights.htm

When you study government led racial discrimination in places like Germany, South Africa and the United States, one of the things that strikes you is the way the established Church supports this persecution. When Christians do resist they do it as individuals or as part of a non-conformist tradition. In the cases of South Africa and the United States, so-called Christians were at the forefront of this persecution.

The reason for this is that Christian belief is highly adaptable. In all cases, it has adapted to political, economic and cultural factors and has therefore become part of the dominant ideology. Although I have a great deal of admiration for individual Christians, I have no respect for the established Church. The history of the 20th century reveals that Christianity is part of the problem and not the solution.

Over the last few years the established Church in Europe (but not the United States) has made an attempt to stand up for the poor and oppressed. However, it is far too late. It failed when it mattered in Germany, South Africa and the United States. The sad fact is that most Christians are more like Tim Gratz than Martin Luther King.

John, I think it's important, as you do, to recognise that the term 'christians' includes a wide range of people and groupings.

Of course first there is christ himself, and his word and action from the bible.

Then there is a long history of churches and splintergroups. there have been periods of time when exteremely radical groups flourished and were stomped out by an often corrupt papacy.

In Germany there were many groups as well.

William Donovan (OSS, Nuremburg) left a huge set of volumes of transcripts, documents, photo's etc when he died. They stayed on his shelves until recognised and donated to the Cornell Law library.

" When Donovan left Germany, he took the documents, had them bound in blue leather and installed them in his Manhattan law office, later called Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine. The collection remained there long after Donovan died in 1959. When the firm closed in 1998, its partners sought a new home for the volumes. One young lawyer, Jonathan Rauchway (Cornell '93), a young associate at Donovan, Leisure, and former summer associate of Henry Korn, informed Korn about the availability of Donovan's papers. Henry Korn, B.A. '68, and his wife, Ellen Schaum Korn, B.S. '68, acquired the collection, and generously donated it to the Cornell Law Library, to enhance its considerable international human rights holdings."

Amongst them is a large (40 mb PDF file) available that discusses this issue(1945). I haven't read it all. But it seems that depending on which groups of christians one looks at there was serious opposition to Hitler as early as early 20s. Hitler and his party also had a policy towards christianity that seemed to be tempered only by conventional sympathies. The long term objective seemed to end up with a final solution here as well. groups of christians were relocated, marginalised and dispossessed. There was a section of society that sought to reconcile their faith with Nazism, and the German Christian church seems to have done this. Not unlike the Methodists in South USA blessing KKK rallies. This does not reflect on christ, but on man.

There is also a large document on a psychological profile on Hitler produced before the end of the war that predicted as a possibility his suicide. His animosity towards any other than worship of man is clear through his writings and speech.

(There is also a transcript of an interview with the imprisoned Goering. He clearly lays the reason for defeat at the feet of the defenders of Stalingrad. He states that if Hitler had not attacked Russia, the development of the jet engine and other technological advances could have been speeded up.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...