Do liberals and atheists honestly think Hitler represents Christianity?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do liberals and atheists honestly think Hitler represents Christianity?

No, because he wasn't a Christian.

Hitler put Christian belief into practice.

In his writings, Martin Luther - the founder of the second-largest branch of Christianity - laid out his vision for how a Christian society should operate. Hitler was inspired by these writings and followed them.

Hitler used Luther's religious writings as almost an instruction manual. Luther's writings were handed out at Hitler's rallies. I don't see how this can't reflect back on Protestantism at the very least.

Naziism in general and Hitler's personal philosophy drew heavily from fundamentally Christian sources. Raising questions about whether he identified as a Christian personally doesn't change any of that.

 

[ChristineM]

Saying it's a 'strawman' argument that Mao and Pol Pot killed in the name of anti-theism also means that you can't blame Christianity on Hitler

You can blame 4 things on Adolf: PTSD, amphetamines, cocaine and opoids. Those 4 things are what made him responsible for the death of over 10 million people directly and a further 70 million indirectly. Drugs are bad

I dont think anyone is blaming Christianity on Hitler.

Actually it was hurt prussian pride, that made him responsible for ...

 

[Augustus]

Hitler put Christian belief into practice.

In his writings, Martin Luther - the founder of the second-largest branch of Christianity - laid out his vision for how a Christian society should operate. Hitler was inspired by these writings and followed them.

Hitler used Luther's religious writings as almost an instruction manual. Luther's writings were handed out at Hitler's rallies. I don't see how this can't reflect back on Protestantism at the very least.

Naziism in general and Hitler's personal philosophy drew heavily from fundamentally Christian sources. Raising questions about whether he identified as a Christian personally doesn't change any of that.

Of course ideas don't emerge from a vacuum, they evolve from existing concept which are modified and combined in new ways.

For example, antisemitism in German society had existed for centuries and later, Luther certainly intensified such antisemitism. In the 19th C scientific racialist theories also became a key driver of anti-semitism, as did the settlement of WW1, and the rise of 'Jewish' Bolshevism.

Hitler relied on all of these concepts in support of his hatred of Jews, so giving Luther preeminence is problematic. I'd say the WW1 + Marxist influences were likely more relevant in his radicalisation than theology or science (as was accepted as science at the time).

Hitler also shared Luther's nationalism, and views on the role of family, but should we assume that he held these because of Luther?

German society was influenced by Christianity, and Nazism was a product of German society. In this sense Christianity, among other factors, necessarily had some influence on Nazism, and many Christians saw enough in common to reconcile the two or find them mutually supportive (although Lutheran Protestantism was easier to reconcile than Catholicism).

Of certain tenets of Nazism multiple factors supported similar ends, and different Nazis focused on different factors in support of their beliefs:

Antisemitism: religious, scientific, political, anti-Marxist
Nationalism: religious, volkisch, romantic, political
Social/familial: religious, political/anti-Marxist

I'd say the balance of probabilities suggests Hitler's motivations were primarily political and anti-Marxist, rather than theological. It's also probable that some of those who influenced Hitler were driven, in part, by religious motivations.

Hitler's radicalisation doesn't seem to result from a religious epiphany, his inner circle was disproportionately anti-religious compared to the rank and file which seems to suggest religious motivations were not key factors in his worldview. His attitude towards Christianity also appeared to become more negative from the late 1930s onwards, and it seems likely that he viewed its replacement as a desirable long term goal.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hitler also shared Luther's nationalism, and views on the role of family, but should we assume that he held these because of Luther?

That's the impression that you get when you read "Mein Kampf." I'm not sure why I would dispute that Luther was a major influence on Hitler when, over and over again, Hitler cites Luther, describes in his own words how Luther's writings inspire him, and explains how he would put them into action... then we look at the events that happened after he rose to power abd we see that he did them.

But I do agree in a limited sense: Luther certainly didn't invent Christian anti-Semitism, and he wasn't the only Christian voice preaching anti-Semitism after Luther came to prominence. Anti-Jewish sentiment in Christianity is long-standing and diverse. It stands to reason that by being surrounded by it in society, he would have been influenced by it as well to some degree.

I'd say the balance of probabilities suggests Hitler's motivations were primarily political and anti-Marxist, rather than theological.

But anti-Marxism was also often theological.

It's also probable that some of those who influenced Hitler were driven, in part, by religious motivations.

Indeed. And even those who weren't religiously motivated to follow Hitler were generally able to reconcile their allegiance to Hitler with their religious beliefs.

Hitler's radicalisation doesn't seem to result from a religious epiphany, his inner circle was disproportionately anti-religious compared to the rank and file which seems to suggest religious motivations were not key factors in his worldview. His attitude towards Christianity also appeared to become more negative from the late 1930s onwards, and it seems likely that he viewed its replacement as a desirable long term goal.

It seems to me that Hitler saw a Christian identity as an important part of the German national identity, but he also got frustrated dealing with the real-world religious hierarchies in Germany at the time. I don't think his friction with Christian churches was so much about rejecting Christianity as it was about a disagreement about how Christianity ought to be and who should be in charge.

 

[ronki23]

You would be correct if the justification for their actions was not based upon the proposition
'Vampires do not exist',
'Leprechauns do not exist',
or similar such proposition.

However, in their case I believe the justification for their actions is based upon the proposition
'Gods do not exist'

Therefore, your objection that atheism is not a belief and, therefore, nothing is justified by it, is not relevant.

'atheism' is 'disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods'
'disbelief in the existence of God or gods' is belief in the statement 'Gods do not exist'.

You seem stuck on this idea that an atheist is somebody who asserts that gods do not exist. I have already explained that this opinion is not necessary to be an atheist. Nor would it be sufficient to constitute an ideology even in those that hold it..

My ideology is called secular humanism, not atheism. Yes, I'm an atheist, but I'm also an avampirist, and I rate those two as equivalent.

How would you receive the claim that your avampirism is an ideology, or that it directs your walk through life? Your answer is probably pretty similar to mine when others tell me that atheism is my ideology.

That is exactly wrong, sorry. And a serious mistake it is.

Christianity literally purports to tell people that it knows what is best for all due to divinity-backed privilege.

Most people know better than to fully trust such a promise most of the time, but the end result is still the misplacement of theism into a role of certainty and motivation that ill suits that belief, with manifestations that include anti-vaccination movements, political irresponsibilty, and mass suicides.

Arguably, it also includes not only Hitler's self-entitlement and insanity, but also and most decisively the unhealthy attachment to promises of miraculous recovery that enabled him among the German people - perhaps even among his foreign supporters, who were many and varied, including many Americans and religious authorities. The existence of a Hitler - of many people as him at any given time or place - is perhaps inevitable, but we as people ought to aim at a future when those madmen no longer become politically influential.

Even today, even after Jim Jones, Heaven's Gate and Hitler himself, far too many people actually find claims of heavenly support a cause for reassurance when it is exactly the opposite.

The bottom line is that Christianity (among other theistic beliefs, most notably Islaam) aims to be a motivational force, and often succeeds at that, and not so much on accepting the responsibility for the results and the duty of course correcting when necessary.

For good or worse, nothing in the whole spectrum of non-theism can even conceivably offer a comparably inconsequential promise. Whatever motivational promises and hopes are to be found can't be sustained by non-theism itself; it just gets out of the way.

That is no justification of violence or even of sudden political change. And that is exactly the point. Refusal to support or to take seriously theistic beliefs lacks motivational power.

I am not really well informed about the excesses of the Mao and Pol Pot regimes, but I feel certain that blaming either on any form of non-theism is very much a confused view. Whatever motivations that may have been are certainly of an entirely different nature, due to the very fact that they are motivations of some form.




So is reliance on theism over responsiblity and common sense.

The only times I ever hear anyone mention Hitler's Christianity is in response to someone else attempting to suggest that some brutal communist dictator who tried to abolish religion in order to get people to worship the state in some way represents atheists.

Well, sure! Isn't that the point?

On the other hand? Since, according to the label, 'Christianity' is supposed to transform and make people be much better people, if they are christians, than if they are not? (whereas atheism makes no such claims). Pointing out that Hitler was, indeed, a Christian In Good Standing does rather prove that just being a christian does nothing to help a person be a better person.


I can also, correctly, blame much of his belief on Christianity. Historically speaking, there was a faction within Catholicism, that taught that the Jews were directly responsible for the death of Jesus (this fell out of favor, once the German atrocities were revealed world-wide). Hitler, in his personal writings, refers to these ideas, and makes much ado of them.

And do not a person's beliefs affect their policy, if they are in a position to make policy?

I don’t blame Christianity for Hitler and I don’t blame atheism for Mao or Pol Pot. You’re the one with the double standard here.

Hitler put Christian belief into practice.

In his writings, Martin Luther - the founder of the second-largest branch of Christianity - laid out his vision for how a Christian society should operate. Hitler was inspired by these writings and followed them.

Hitler used Luther's religious writings as almost an instruction manual. Luther's writings were handed out at Hitler's rallies. I don't see how this can't reflect back on Protestantism at the very least.

Naziism in general and Hitler's personal philosophy drew heavily from fundamentally Christian sources. Raising questions about whether he identified as a Christian personally doesn't change any of that.

He obviously wasn't a conventional Christian because he followed both Luther and the Catholic Church; you can't be both Catholic and Protestant:- either the Pope is your leader or he isn't.

Hitler also had a fascination with Islam; thousands of his soldiers were Bosnian Muslims

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He obviously wasn't a conventional Christian because he followed both Luther and the Catholic Church; you can't be both Catholic and Protestant:- either the Pope is your leader or he isn't.

A quick Googling tells me that while he was baptized Catholic, he never attended mass after he left his parents' home. In what sense do you mean that he "followed" the Catholic Church?

 

[QuestioningMind]

He obviously wasn't a conventional Christian because he followed both Luther and the Catholic Church; you can't be both Catholic and Protestant:- either the Pope is your leader or he isn't.

Hitler also had a fascination with Islam; thousands of his soldiers were Bosnian Muslims

I don't know why you included my previous quote in this post, since you didn't address what I wrote about in any way shape or form.

"The only times I ever hear anyone mention Hitler's Christianity is in response to someone else attempting to suggest that some brutal communist dictator who tried to abolish religion in order to get people to worship the state in some way represents atheists."

 

[Jumi]

I don't see how this can't reflect back on Protestantism at the very least.

The Protestants, especially Lutherans, have made strides to correct themselves after the War.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Protestants, especially Lutherans, have made strides to correct themselves after the War.

... because they recognized that Luther's anti-Semitism was reflecting on them and took steps to address it.

And the only denominations I know who have actually taken steps to condemn Luther's anti-Semitism are Lutheran denominations.

Also, note something in what you said: "after the War." When people finally saw, through news reports out out Nazi-occupied Europe, what it really meant to put Luther's teachings about the Jews into practice, they were naturally repelled by what they saw.

However, in Hitler's time, his attitudes and behaviours toward Jews reflected a mindset that was very mainstream for - and was a product of - Christianity in general and Luther-derived teachings in particular.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

I'm trying to get through the Mao and Pol Pot thread but the notion that Hitler represents over 2 billion people is stupid.

More than that, it's troubling because it represents that people can be duped into believing that Trump and his followers for wanting to secure their country (and in fact, wanting to do so ONLY in response to other countries mainly in the EU bloc being overrun by a trend of globalism and insecure borders) are #LiterallyHitler for wanting to preserve actual Christian values.

What has the 20th and 21st centuries taught us?
1. That secular government systems can be masked in the guise of religion. For example Nazi "religion" was basically a secular expansionist political system with a couple Christian-like symbols tacked on, along with alot of totemism (belief in sacred objects, that Hitler had to grab because he thought they would bring him victory), and Norse traditions. But these all were for mass consumption. If we learn anything, it that we should be wary of things like cultural relativism, and saying this or that religion is just another religion. There's an actual litmus test: Does this religion impose laws not on its owb followers but on non-followers? If so, it is not a religion at all but a political system. There are such cults even in modern times, and we must be wary of them.
2. Political alliances don't work, nor does appeasement, nor does expansion. In World War I, we had lead-up in the form of imperialism and numerous alliances all throughout the world, and all it took was a single man getting assassinated to have people say "come to our aid, you signed an alliance agreement with us". Yes, but... they also signed alliance agreements with other countries and those contradict this alliance. Oops. In World War II, nationalism has become a dirty word. But Hitler was Literally not a nationalist. Nationalism is isolationism, what Switzerland did for two world wars. What China did by building walls against Mongolian invaders (fine for Qin Shi Huang Di, but when Trump does it it's racist). If more countries practiced this, we wouldn't have had two world wars. But people have learned nothing. Big alliances like the UN. And allowing expansionism just because certain ppl claim to be a religion.

Those who fail in history class should be doomed to repeat it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's an actual litmus test: Does this religion impose laws not on its owb followers but on non-followers? If so, it is not a religion at all but a political system. There are such cults even in mode

"Religion" and "political system" are not mutually exclusive.


BTW: can you name a religion that hasn't imposed laws on non-followers? I can't think of a single one.

 

[Milton Platt]

I'm trying to get through the Mao and Pol Pot thread but the notion that Hitler represents over 2 billion people is stupid.

He does not represent them, but he was religious format least some of his life snd he invokesmthe Christian god in some of his speeches. His storm troopers han “god with us” stamped into their belt buckles. It is possible tomarguemthat hemwas a Christian in some sense, but that does not make him representative of all Christians any more that Christopher Hitchins, or Richard Dawkins represents all atheists.

 

[ronki23]

I don't know if Hitler was even Christian? Can we shed some light on this?

 

[metis]

I don't know if Hitler was even Christian? Can we shed some light on this?

He was baptized Catholic and even was an alter boy but later turned not only away from Catholicism but also Christianity and religion as a whole. Even though he sometimes invoked God and Jesus in his speeches, that was clearly done for pandering purposes. Matter of fact, after the "Final Solution" was to be finished, his next move along these lines was to eradicate Catholicism from Europe and then replacing all of Christianity with a Norse legend that would put him at the top of the deities.

 

[ronki23]

He was baptized Catholic and even was an alter boy but later turned not only away from Catholicism but also Christianity and religion as a whole. Even though he sometimes invoked God and Jesus in his speeches, that was clearly done for pandering purposes. Matter of fact, after the "Final Solution" was to be finished, his next move along these lines was to eradicate Catholicism from Europe and then replacing all of Christianity with a Norse legend that would put him at the top of the deities.

@Bob the Unbeliever @HonestJoe

So we can agree that Hitler wasn't Christian but Mao and Pol Pot were anti-theists considering they killed Buddhist Monks and Muslims in both countries?

Happy? I call Mao and Pol Pot anti-theist, not atheist.

 

[SomeRandom]

.

However, in Hitler's time, his attitudes and behaviours toward Jews reflected a mindset that was very mainstream for - and was a product of - Christianity in general and Luther-derived teachings in particular.

Is that why he gained so much power that quickly?
I was always perturbed by how quickly everyone seemed to follow Hitler. I mean I know the first war had made the Germans a little desperate. But geesh!

 

[SomeRandom]

@Bob the Unbeliever @HonestJoe

So we can agree that Hitler wasn't Christian but Mao and Pol Pot were anti-theists considering they killed Buddhist Monks and Muslims in both countries?

Happy? I call Mao and Pol Pot anti-theist, not atheist.

Did they kill due to being anti theist though?

They certainly killed for power and political purposes. Religion in totalitarian regimes can pose a significant political threat. When you demand obedience but are still mortal, a religion can very easily deny you that authority to its followers.

I would hesitate to assign figures like Mao, Pol Pot or even Hitler with religious (or even anti religious) labels. They did what they did to keep their power. Religion was merely a tool or obstacle. I don't know if it was particularly personal to any of them. But I'm not a historian, so....

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

@Bob the Unbeliever @HonestJoe

So we can agree that Hitler wasn't Christian but Mao and Pol Pot were anti-theists considering they killed Buddhist Monks and Muslims in both countries?

Happy? I call Mao and Pol Pot anti-theist, not atheist.

No. Hitler most definitely was a christian-- he wrote about it in his private diaries. He very much believed that he was a christian in good standing with the christian god.

Since there is no over-arching authority that would kill anyone who claims to be 'christian' but is only faking, who would have killed him before allowing him to fake it.

Which is just as well, because if there was such an authority? I wonder what the percentage of those claiming to be 'christian' would be affected, today?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Is that why he gained so much power that quickly?
I was always perturbed by how quickly everyone seemed to follow Hitler. I mean I know the first war had made the Germans a little desperate. But geesh!

Hitler used the Classic Bread and Circuses: he promised Germany the Moon, and invented The Evil as a scapegoat. He blamed all their ills on The Evil, and promised everyone magical Prosperity.

This is old hat, actually-- many many good documentaries during that period, explain Hitler's appeal.

 

[HonestJoe]

So we can agree that Hitler wasn't Christian but Mao and Pol Pot were anti-theists considering they killed Buddhist Monks and Muslims in both countries?

I don’t claim to be any kind of expert on those areas of history. I gather Pol Pot was fairly specifically (and violently) anti-religion but Mao (and that era of Communism more generally) is probably more complex and the wider question is more nuanced. Hitler killed lots of Jews but that doesn’t make him an anti-theist. I don’t think attaching simplistic labels to these men and their policies and actions is especially helpful.

The core point remains regardless; Whatever label you might be able to legitimately attach to any of these men, it doesn’t say anything about anyone else you might attach the same labels to and that principle applies across the board.