…and this is a 
There was a debate yesterday, on the motion "The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world". On the affirmative side, the Catholics had Anne Widdecombe, a conservative British politician, and Archbishop Onaiyekan of Abuja, Nigeria. On the godless side…Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens.
Just look at that lineup and you can predict how it went. It was a complete rout.
The problem (from the Catholic point of view) was that the speakers arguing for the Church as a force for good were hopelessly outclassed by two hugely popular, professional performers. The archbishop had obviously decided that it would work best if he stuck to facts and figures and presented the Church as a sort of vast charitable or "social welfare" organisation. He emphasised how many Catholics there were in the world, and that even included "heads of state", he said, as if that was a clincher. But he said virtually nothing of a religious or spiritual nature as far as I could tell, and non-Catholics would have been none the wiser about what you might call the transcendent aspects of the Church. Then later when challenged he became painfully hesitant. In the end he mumbled and spluttered and retreated into embarrassing excuses and evasions. He repeatedly got Ann Widdecombe's name wrong. The hostility of both the audience and his opponents seemed to have discomfited him.
So it was left to Ann Widdecombe to defend the Church single-handedly. She did well, showed a light touch and took Hitchens to task for exaggerations and so on. But in the end Hitchens and Fry were able to persuade decisively by simply listing one after another the wicked things that have been done in the Church's name over the centuries. More than anything they focused on the "institutionalisation of the rape and torture and maltreatment of children". That's what Hitchens called it - that's pretty much what it was - and Fry returned to it. I don't blame them for harping on about these unspeakable crimes, because there is no answer to them. Then they talked about the Church's teaching on homosexuality. When Zeinab Badawi in the chair asked the archbishop whether Christ himself ever actually said anything about homosexuality, he replied by saying "that's not the point" or words to that effect, and sounded slippery.
Ah, fish in a barrel, defended from a pair of professional big game hunters and explosives experts by a pair of ditherers. That's entertainment!
Comments
Posted by: Am I Evil | October 20, 2009 7:59 AM
I was there! And it was great! Huge swing to the 'againsts' at the end.
Posted by: A$KE | October 20, 2009 8:00 AM
nice Catholic-bash
i hope someone taped it and put it on youtube
Posted by: Am I Evil | October 20, 2009 8:03 AM
A$KE - it will be on BBC World around the 7th - 8th November, if that helps.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 20, 2009 8:04 AM
cue "BUT STALIN AND MAO"
Posted by: Gordy
|
October 20, 2009 8:06 AM
Thanks, Am I Evil 3# - I was just about to ask. Can't wait :)
Posted by: Richard | October 20, 2009 8:15 AM
Have you seen their upcoming lineup including
November 29, 2009
Debate: Atheism is the new fundamentalism
Posted by: Cruithne | October 20, 2009 8:18 AM
Derren Brown was also one of the team against the church. I like Anne Widdicome, even though I disagree with her on everything from her politics to her faith, she is a person of integrity, rare enough in politics, even more rare in a religious politician.
I'm looking forward to hearing this when it's broadcast.
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | October 20, 2009 8:18 AM
Fish in a barrel?
More like a blue whale in a swimming pool. With TNT.
Posted by: hmmm | October 20, 2009 8:21 AM
Whenever I hear theist respond that God is loving and just and works in mysterious ways, when asked about the atrocities of the Old Testament. All I can think of is a battered wife with a black eye and fat lip making excuses for her husband saying how he loves her and it was her fault for talking during NASCAR.
Posted by: Ted Dahlberg
|
October 20, 2009 8:22 AM
Just yesterday I was watching the episode of QI where Stephen Fry banned anyone who believes in astrology from watching the show (to huge applause from the audience). That man can barely open his mouth without raising my respect for him.
Posted by: Am I Evil | October 20, 2009 8:23 AM
@ Cruithne - had a chat with Derren afterwards, top bloke!
Posted by: Zeno
|
October 20, 2009 8:24 AM
I'm sure the bishop picked the best tack for the situation, focusing on the church's enormous efforts in charitable human services, but even there he has a problem. The church's programs in impoverished regions feed the poor and tend the sick, but are required to condemn any efforts to control population (except by the periodic abstinence of "Natural Family Planning") or reduce transmission of sexually transmitted diseases through the proper use of condoms (even if your spouse is infected and you are not, prophylactics are forbidden). The church's efforts in health care is similarly handicapped (sorry, you can't have a vasectomy or tubal ligature; they make baby Jesus cry).
Every single good work is hedged about with dogmatic asterisks and ideological conditions.
Posted by: Neil Davies | October 20, 2009 8:25 AM
@Cruithne - Just to clarify, Derren Brown was in the audience for the debate, he didn't take part.
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
October 20, 2009 8:27 AM
The commentors in the paper complain that they need more christian intellectuals. They might like to think about that statement and how quickly it is becoming an oxymoron.
Apparently they said that christianity also gave us Mozart so it's just as well that that particular commentor 'feared the ridicule of the massed atheist rationalists' too much to speak. So would I if my comments were going to be that insipid at a debate.
So they don't have the facts in their favour, they don't have the voices. So they whine that we were being nasty to them and that their God makes being human more...more...warm and fuzzy probably.
In the cold and dark of night, I turn the light on...and the heating up.
Posted by: Jer | October 20, 2009 8:30 AM
When Zeinab Badawi in the chair asked the archbishop whether Christ himself ever actually said anything about homosexuality, he replied by saying "that's not the point" or words to that effect, and sounded slippery.
Of course he did. Because the Mother Church's teachings against homosexuality aren't based on anything in the Gospels - they're mostly based on the authority of the Church itself. The Church says gays are sinners, therefore gays are sinners. The Catholic Church is a feudal organization in a post-Enlightenment world and they STILL don't understand why people keep questioning them instead of just doing what they say.
They'd mostly be much happier if the world turned back to the Dark Ages when the Church's power was unquestioned.
Posted by: latichever | October 20, 2009 8:32 AM
Although I agree with the anti-Catholic side, a debate's outcome is not necessarily a reflection of the virtue of your argument. The pro-Catholic side could easily match the Catholic outrages with Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler, which goes to show that humans of all stripes commit very bad acts. In a deeper sense, as the great atheist, David Hume, implied, no world view entails humane behavior.
From my cynical point of view, I see a scientific, but not a moral high ground for atheism.
Posted by: Christy
|
October 20, 2009 8:35 AM
I was there too: I think it kind of helped that they wern't debating religion vs. atheism per sae, other wise Ann and the Bishop would have definately trotted out the old standards about the holocaust and Mao Stalin etc.
I have to say I have seen few more amusing sights than an elderly virgin and a man dressed as a neon-tipped condom getting so insistant that they're not 'Obsessed with Sex.'...
Posted by: Cruithne | October 20, 2009 8:38 AM
@Neil Davies
I must have picked Derren up wrong, his Twitter feed gave the impression he had taken part.
Posted by: Am I Evil | October 20, 2009 8:39 AM
@ latichever - do you think Mao, Stalin etc did their evil deeds specifically in the name of atheism?
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
October 20, 2009 8:45 AM
-From my cynical point of view, I see a scientific, but not a moral high ground for atheism.-
It is more a neutral moral ground. Religion being the moral low ground but with great aspirations.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 20, 2009 8:46 AM
What did I say earlier?
People making those arguments ignore the historical reality of those situations.
And Hitler? Why include him in that group?
Posted by: Alan
|
October 20, 2009 8:46 AM
For those of you who don't know the Widdecombe, here's an (unpublished) letter I wrote to The Times. It was when the last Speaker (of the House of Commons) had resigned in disgrace & she was one of the potentials considering throwing their hats in the ring. Despite her apparent bonhomie she's utter poison.
Sir,
I understand that Ms Ann Widdecombe is to stand for the office of Speaker. It is right then that we should know something about her character. When the Tories were last in office she was a Minister in the Home Office. During that time the government and a local council dabbled in a murky little bit of business to close an old folks home. After strong opposition from locals, the home was shut down and the long term residents were turfed out onto the streets. There was very strong evidence that the case for closing the home rested on lies. John Waite explored this on his programme Face the Facts and it fell to Ms Widdecombe to defend the decision. In the interview Mr Waite asked Ms Widdecombe why the government had classified the evidence so that it was hidden from public scrutiny. Ms Widdecombe stated, without any apparent shame, that the public had no right to know the facts. Her evident contempt for honesty, openness and for the public render her, in my opinion, entirely unfit to be considered for the post to which she now aspires. It would be a public service if the BBC could rebroadcast the programme so we could once again listen to her breathtaking arrogance.
Yours faithfully,
Alan Bird.
Posted by: Roameo
|
October 20, 2009 8:46 AM
I dont think they would get too far with that line of argument. The catholic church is an institution, and has an institutional history of rape murder and torture. These crimes have been carried out under the orders of the papacy, and have been justified by the ideology they support.
By comparison, there is no governing body of atheists to order atrocities. Although all communists are atheists, not all atheists are communists, and certainly not all are or were affiliated with the reigimes responsible for the forced starvation, the great leap forward etc.
Atheism also has no defined set of moral guidelines. you are free to subscribe to whatever ethical code you want. Many atheists are secular humanists, but this is by no means a pre-requisite for joining the club.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 20, 2009 8:52 AM
You need to go an read about political religion. Once you have, you will understand why comments such as these attract such derision. You also need to go and read some history on the Third Reich.
Hitler was a Catholic so it would not exactly be a good idea to use him an an argument in favour of Catholicism.
Posted by: Dunc | October 20, 2009 8:56 AM
Which would be completely beside the point. The motion under discussion was "The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world", not "The Catholic Church is a unique force for evil in the world."
The fact that other people and organisations have also done bad things does not make the bad things the Catholic Church has done any less bad.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
October 20, 2009 9:01 AM
I'm going to ignore the first part of your comment because I don't think you thought it out well (hence the reason you are being taken to task for it) and it doesn't really make a case for what you are trying to say, I feel... so I'll stick with the las piece, which I think is really your point...
And to that I'll say that no atheist would claim atheism, in and of itself, as an arbiter of morality. However, one could make a sold argument that deriving one's morality from the same basic tenets of rationality and inquiry that lead one to atheism is better than having it unquestionably indoctrinated from bronze-age mythology.
And that's not what this debate was about, at any rate. The debate was about the merits of the suggestion that "the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world"... and the arguments against that suggestion had nothing to do with proclaiming the moral superiority of atheism itself. No, the argument was a much simpler tactic of denying christianity, and more specifically, catholicism as a viable source for morality, and laying out all of the clear examples throughout history that directly contradict such a suggestion.
Posted by: Luke Tunmer
|
October 20, 2009 9:03 AM
I was there, too - and it was indeed an excellent display - well worth the trip down to London.
What was clear to me that the bishop was genuinely surprised by the strength of feelings from both Hitch and Fry, and then from the audience. What sort of bubble has the man been living in that he has never heard of any arguments against his church? His opening arguments where just so pathetic.
Ann Widdecombe on the other hand, thoroughly enjoys being a martyr, and so revelled in that fact that she was in a significant minority.
Some of the usual canards where thrown out by those for the motion:
1) The church has billions of members worldwide, so there must be something in it. As one audience member pointed out, this number comes from the creative accounting departments of the Vatican where it's easy to join, but very difficult to leave the cult.
2) It's not the Catholic church that is obsessed about sex, it's all those that criticize it! WTF - where does one start with that one?
3) Blaming Hitch and Fry for being the only ones who got personal and called the bishop sexually perverted. Of course, as Fry made clear, this is because Church's interfering in the world matters to millions of people. But Fry was being mean and calling the Bishop names.
4) We don't understand sophisticated theology, so that's why we can't understand why the priesthood is denied to woman. This was Widdecombe's argument! It just makes no sense to me why she - as someone who has fought hard in male-dominated politics - would argue such a ridiculous concept as men only being able to be the surrogates for Christ (or some waffle along those lines).
5) Fry revelled in the absurdity of the change of mind of the Pope on the fate of un-baptized children. Widdecombe sternly corrected him to say that prior to this change-of-heart, the souls of the children "were not left in limbo for eternity, only until the second coming of Christ". Oh, that's okay then. The audience had a gleeful chuckle at this absurd Catholic logic.
6) The ten commandments were brought up by a Catholic supporter in the audience has a fine moral code to which Christians should live. Of course, this was just grist to Hitch's mill since he's argued on that subject on a couple of occasions. Sadly he wasn't allowed to go into his full rant against that silly notion.
The only arguments that Widdecombe made that weren't completely absurd was when she was quoting from some publications questioning the success of condom campaigns in Africa. I've heard too many conflicting bits of evidence here to know whether she was being accurate in her citations or quoting selectively. Surely, as Fry argued, the best strategy in poverty stricken Africa is to promote abstinence, faithfulness and safe condom use. Why eliminate one strategy because you have some strange belief in every sperm being sacred?
I came out of the debate exhilarated, but realistically I know this bloody-nose blow to the Catholic church will do nothing to dent that evil organization's grip on its huge following.
Posted by: DaveH | October 20, 2009 9:07 AM
Am I Evil @11
Are you sure you're saying that of your own free will???
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 20, 2009 9:07 AM
This is one significant advantage which atheists have over religionists -- in debate situations, and in life. We're used to hostility, we expect it, and it won't discomfit us or take us unaware.
Despite their regular claims to be 'persecuted,' most theists seem to blandly assume that of course having and adhering to faith is going to be considered a good thing. The arguments are all going to be about how they don't have the right faith, or don't follow their faith well enough -- it won't be on faith itself. When it is, it throws them.
latichever #16 wrote:
Morality is always grounded and debated in the area of ethical philosophy -- whether it is theistic, or secular. The moral value of atheism is that it recognizes this, and cannot clutter up or distort moral choices by insisting that unprovable supernatural "facts" be used as background.
When we acknowledge the "good things" which religion does, those good things have to be good by secular standards. I think that a "good thing" which is only going to be considered good if you happen to accept a particular set of religious facts, is either going to be morally pointless ('don't touch a light switch on Saturday'), or morally reprehensible ('kill the infidels.')
Posted by: Dave
|
October 20, 2009 9:12 AM
Speaking of morally reprehensible, check out Bill Donohue's taliban-esque screed in today's WaPo.
"The culture war is up for grabs. The good news is that religious conservatives continue to breed like rabbits, while secular saboteurs have shut down: they're too busy walking their dogs, going to bathhouses and aborting their kids. Time, it seems, is on the side of the angels."
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
October 20, 2009 9:18 AM
Please... thank you but NO...
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
October 20, 2009 9:22 AM
Let me expand a bit further on my last comment:
Whenever I see something like this:
I have the same reaction as when my wife opens the fridge, smells a really old container of milk, and then turns to me and says "Ugh! Blech! Smell this."
Why, thank you but no... I'm aware that rotten milk stinks, and I've no desire to reaffirm that knowledge by intentionally subjecting myself to the unpleasant experience.
Posted by: Your Mighty Overload | October 20, 2009 9:25 AM
Any organisation which as a matter of policy defends and protects child rapists cannot be called a net force for good in the world, in my opinion.
Posted by: steve | October 20, 2009 9:30 AM
I was there! I shook Hitchen's hand afterwards, and told him how much I respected someone with the physical courage to try waterboarding and the intellectual courage to admit afterwards that he was wrong. If the church did do that kind of thing, they might have carried the motion... (I don't think they're right about their religion, but they could be a force for good).
The most powerful point was ignored by the religious speakers, because they simply couldn't handle it. Widdecombe argued that the church's behaviour towards pederasts was in keeping with the morality at the time. That the inquisition was in keeping with social behaviour at the time. That slavery was in keeping with morality at the time. Quite apart from this being the social relativism that she and other Catholics revile in us, she completely undermines the church. Either:
There is no direct line from the pope to god.
God got something wrong.
God changed his mind about what was wrong.
In any of these circumstances, her argument defends the church on the basis of the motion, but in doing so removes its entire foundation.
Some additional comments:
The Archbishop is an intellectual lightweight. He was an empty seat.
I think the big swing against the church was caused by people gaming the pre-debate vote.
An entire row of people near us left in the middle of Hitchen's speech. What did they show up for, if not to hear both sides? Were they just cheerleaders for the archbishop?
If you're going to one of these things, show up really early.
Stephen Fry is a giant. Also, he's lost weight, and is frighteningly intelligent. I'm glad he's gay, or my girlfriend would have tried to jump him.
Most importantly, I'm glad that Fry and Hitchens are on our side! They are such powerful speakers that they could make a fortune as charismatic preachers.
Posted by: Charles Sane | October 20, 2009 9:37 AM
I haven't seen this, but from the descriptions it sounds like an slanted meeting.
Recently in Minnesota there was a 'debate' about climate change held at a local school, showing Al Gore's film and then another film (I forget the title) which was anti-climate change.
Afterwards the organizer, who was clearly anti-climate change in nature, spoke. He was energetic, charismatic, convincing. He gave the pretense of being 'fair' by showing both sides, but then proceeded to convince much of the audience of one point of view.
The trouble is that 'public opinion' is decided by charismatic speakers, without nearly as much regard for the facts.
I have little doubt that Christopher Hitchens, should he desire, is talented enough that he could have put himself on the other side of the argument and trounced the atheists.
This is tough. We need the truth, but we also need public opinion. I'm glad Hitchens is on the same side that I am, but don't personally find a good charismatic trouncing to be nearly as satisfying as the first few chapters of 'End of Faith'.
Posted by: Zeno
|
October 20, 2009 9:43 AM
Perhaps Donohue and others foresee eventual victory for their side because of their unbridled sexuality (funny: I thought it was supposed to be because Jesus was going to come again, not because condomless Christians do), but Wild Bill seems unaware that religion is merely culturally inherited, not genetically inherited. Preachers' kids are not necessarily devout and lots of nonbelievers were believers in their youth. The Christians are breeding their future detractors as well as their future successors.
Posted by: Tim Danaher
|
October 20, 2009 9:44 AM
Christy @ #17: "An elderly virgin and a senior British politician", shurely?
Alan @ #22: Quite. I remember when she was a home office minister and she refused to let a prisoner (burglary) who was dying of stomach cancer be un-handcuffed from his bed in his final hours. Poison.
Posted by: Peter Ashby
|
October 20, 2009 9:46 AM
Meanwhile over here in the UK a government minister has told a gathering of religious leaders that you can good without god and that a religious upbringing is not the only way to have a moral upbringing and education.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/20/denham-morality-church-leaders
I will admit that Obama has come sort of close, but nowhere near as stark as this. I liked his points on secularism as well.
Posted by: JHS
|
October 20, 2009 9:49 AM
For the life of me I will never understand what they hope to accomplish with the "argument from numbers"...as in, There are soooo many of us! So, nyah!
Some countries have more sheep than people (*ahem*Ireland), so should such nations hand the keys over to their numerically superior, delightfully fuzzy overlords? By the "numbers" logic, yes.
They also probably forgot that a slight majority of people on earth are female (horrors!)...
Posted by: Wolfhound | October 20, 2009 9:50 AM
The comments after the UK article are rather dreadful. There's a particularly rabid papist, last name of "England", who is scary-crazy.
Posted by: Strangest brew
|
October 20, 2009 9:50 AM
Anne Widdecombe, a conservative British politician converted to Roman Catholicism in 1993 when she left the Church of England as a protest at the ordination of female priests.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | October 20, 2009 9:54 AM
(Okay, its copypasta, but it is the same article either way)
Actually, you know, it wasn’t really. We exhult in it because it was awesome, but this wasn’t a pair of third rate debaters versus a particularly tough pair.
The Catholics brought in a guy who spent his whole life studying for this debate, who should have had an intimate knowledge of the “good works” his church did on the ground (After all, he is a ranking clergyman from a third world country.)
An Archbishop, it must be noted, is no amateur when it comes to public performances. It is a big part of their jobs.
Ann Widdecombe was an MP, and a TV presenter. Are you telling me politicians are incapable of debate in the UK? Or that TV presenters aren’t professional performers?
Hitchens and Fry managed to eat the two alive while Hitchens slowly got drunk.
This wasn’t a matter of shooting fish in a barrel, this was the best marksmen the Catholics could muster accidently shooting themselves in the head and landing in a barrel full of piranhas.
Posted by: Matt Penfold
|
October 20, 2009 10:03 AM
Widdecombe also made a series of TV programs for ITV. I could only watch one. She was set the challenge of "helping" some sex workers.
She started off with a lecture on the immorality of prostitution and then told the women about the dangers they faced (Like they did not already know!). Her advice basically came down to "get a job". Which I had presumed these women had tried to do, but had not been able to find one that fitted in with their child care arrangements and paid enough.
She was incredibly ignorant and patronising. Readers of the Daily Mail will have loved her. Civilised humans, not so much.
Posted by: Rey Fox
|
October 20, 2009 10:03 AM
...bathhouses?
Posted by: Christy
|
October 20, 2009 10:03 AM
Incidently I saw mentalist Derren Brown in the audience- and I think the Catholic side might have missed a trick by not claiming that he 'influenced' the audience...
Posted by: Rorschach | October 20, 2009 10:09 AM
Sastra @ 29,
Exactly right ! "Kill the infidels" may be right by the standards of medieval mythology, but it's fucked by secular standards.By the standards of any basically moral person, really.
I noticed in the article the observation that Hitchens was "drinking amber liquid from under the table". Not quite sure what that has to do with anything, really.British journalism I guess.
And it is indeed a bit of a tough assignment to defend the RCC lol, given their track record.Wish someone had asked the Nigerian guy how the witch child killings are going.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 20, 2009 10:14 AM
latichever @ #16:
Two major problems with this.
First, Hitler was raised catholic, and got a lot of support from the catholic church. The current pope was a member of the Hitler Youth. A catholic trying to blame Hitler on non-catholics would be laughed off the stage, and deserves to be.
Second, the topic of the debate was whether "The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world". Claiming that non-catholics do bad things too does NOT address this, it's just an attempt to change the subject. Whining about the bad acts of non-catholics does not make the catholic church's actions any better. Pointing at Stalin's atrocities does not erase the Crusades from history, nor does bringing up Mao make the Vatican's cover-up of sexual abuse go away.
Posted by: sqlrob
|
October 20, 2009 10:19 AM
Definitely, what was the most famous proponent of communism name, begins with a J, it's on the tip of my tongue...
Oh yeah, Jesus. Real famous atheist. Had some serious father issues though.
Posted by: Sigmund
|
October 20, 2009 10:21 AM
"Wish someone had asked the Nigerian guy how the witch child killings are going."
To be fair that activity is not associated with Catholicism these days but rather evangelic protestantism and in particular pentecostalism. The Catholic church these days prefers to kill by means of HIV transmission rather than fire.
It was a rather strange line-up on the Catholic side. There must be better debators than those two. I suspect any Catholic intellectual with sense would have seen the names Hitchens and Fry on the invite and suddenly realized the date unfortunately clashed with the night they wash their hair.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 20, 2009 10:22 AM
Zeno @ #36:
Then again, Donowhore is a right-wing nutjob, so he may well believe that religion is set at birth.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | October 20, 2009 10:23 AM
Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 20, 2009 10:14 AM
Also Pol Pot, though an atheist, was a product of Catholic schooling.
Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
October 20, 2009 10:24 AM
Penfold wrote:
"You also need to go and read some history on the Third Reich.
Hitler was a Catholic so it would not exactly be a good idea to use him an an argument in favour of Catholicism."
Well, I've read a lot of history on the Third Reich, and this Hitler-was-a-Catholic meme really needs a stake through the heart.
Hitler never formally left the Catholic Church, and he was never an atheist; but he was ideologically far removed from the teachings of either the Catholic Church or the Protestant Churches in Germany by the time he took power.
What primarily characterized Hitler's political outlook was a mishmash of social Darwinism and racism. (N.B. Hitler was never a follower of Darwin, whom he probably never read, but had picked up some notions common in the social Darwinist literature of the day: e.g. the "struggle for existence," applied normatively to human communities.) Joined to these was a belief in an only vaguely defined God or destiny (he used both words pretty much interchangeably), which he came to be convinced had chosen him to be the saviour of Germany.
Precisely because the churches offered an independant moral authority, Hitler spent much of the period between 1933 when he took power and 1939 when he had more pressing concerns on a campaign of harassment and intimidation against the churches (with an especial focus on the Catholic Church). (On this see Richard J. Evans, THE THIRD REICH IN POWER, ch. 2, Converting the Soul, pp. 220ff.
Hitler paid a certain amount of lip service to Christianity publicly, but his private comments on the subject were consistently contemptuous.
So, certainly not an atheist. Probably not a Christian by the time he took power or earlier (and the basis for doubt consists, I think, in that public lip service I mentioned above--which should bear less weight than what close confidants like Joseph Goebbels and Albert Speer reported about Hitler's private expression of his beliefs). I would agree in rejecting the characterization of the Nazi regime as atheistic; however, Christians are not wrong in seeing Nazism as in many ways anthithetical to Christianity.
Posted by: Matt Penfold
|
October 20, 2009 10:27 AM
I have struggling to think of anyone in the UK who could be classed as a Catholic intellectual.
A few came to mind, Clifford Longley, Christine Odone, but they all suffer a serious flaw. Whilst they can superficially appear intelligent, sane and rational it does not take much to get them spouting gibberish. Disparaging Catholic Theology, such as transubstantiation, is a good bet to send them off into la la land. Mother Theresa is also a good bet to make Catholic intellectuals foam at the mouth.
Posted by: llewelly | October 20, 2009 10:29 AM
Andrew M Brown on Oct 20th, 2009 at 12:15 pm :
The leaders of Fascism (including Hitler) where primarily Christians. In any case - niether Fry nor Hitchens has ever advocated either Fascism or Marxism.
I would have posted this at the torygraph, in the article's comments, but I can't get their registration to work.
Posted by: Matt Penfold
|
October 20, 2009 10:33 AM
Actually I think Hitchins might well have espoused Marxism at one stage. But that was back when he was student.
Fry as far as I know has always be a left of centre liberal.
Posted by: Rorschach | October 20, 2009 10:34 AM
Aaron Baker the history twister,
http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm ,for some evidence of Hitler's closeness to the RCC.
Uhuh. All those good christian germans that joined the party and/or fought in the war must have been "no true christians" somehow, seeing that Germany was an overwhelmingly christian country at the time,whether catholic or protestant.
Posted by: Matt Penfold
|
October 20, 2009 10:41 AM
One answer to that idiot Andrew Brown is that in the absence of religion we try to work out what is moral by discussion, calling on science, psychology and ethical philosophy to help us.
Being human we will cock things up. We will make mistakes even if we are acting with the best of intentions. However we will also be capable ethics employed by stone-age goat herders is not the bes of recognising our mistakes and correcting them. We need to deal with the society we have now, which is why trying to make use of morals and ethics employed by stone-age goat herders is not the best place to start.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 20, 2009 10:42 AM
steve @ #34:
You left out "or god is an evil bastard". :P
But seriously, if she's defending the church's behavior on the grouds that it was "in keeping with the morality at the time" (a claim that is simply false with regard to the more recent child abuse cases), how does she hide from the fact that the church is supposed to be teaching the morality of the time? Isn't "god's representative on Earth" supposed to be a moral leader rather than merely swaying with the winds of public opinion?
These fuckwits claim to have direct guidance from the creator of the fucking universe that makes them better than everyone else. But with all these wonderful blessings they babble about, they don't even meet the basic standards of morality that us heathens use, much less exceed them!
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | October 20, 2009 10:43 AM
Posted by: Aaron Baker Author Profile Page | October 20, 2009 10:24 AM
Did Hitler, repeatedly and publically state his Catholicism? Yes.
Was Hitler baptised and confirmed as a Catholic? Yes.
Did Hitler ever renounce his membership of the Catholic Church? No.
Was Hitler ever excommunicated? No.
According to the Catholic Church itself that means he lived and died a Catholic.
And aside from that, the religious appologetic acrobatics about "But in his private life" - fuck his private life. Hitler's private life wasn't what killed all those Jews and started World War Two. It was his public life.
Hitler's public life was very much Catholic, his support was in part based on him being a Catholic, his party's structure was even modeled on Catholicism.
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
October 20, 2009 10:48 AM
I must say in the Catholics' defense, the premise of the debate sort of put them at a disadvantage. One side attacking the other, and the other side defending itself? Kind of puts the pro-Catholic side in an argumentative corner.
That said, with the information that's recently come out, and not-so-recently come out, about the Church's conduct towards children, women, poor Africans, and just about anyone else with nowhere else to go, I suppose any pro-Catholic intellectual with sense really should have thought about that before they accepted the terms of the debate. Fish, meet barrel.
At least he didn't lie, I'll give him that much. Instead he made his side look even more appalling. "Yes, I admit that Jesus didn't say anything about Teh Ghey, but if Mother Church wants to treat those dirty sodomites like subhumans, that's our business!"
We need a macro just for blitherings like this. It should involve rotten tomatoes.
Let's see here: an institution that established its empire by torturing and killing people who refused to convert, and which tells its followers they're not allowed to use birth control, and which preachers to the desperate and ignorant and then tells them they're not allowed to use birth control, expects us to believe they're a force for good because they have A LOT OF PEOPLE on their membership rolls?
They must REALLY be scraping the bottom of the barrel (full of the remains of what used to be fish) for these "arguments." That's so wrong it's actually kind of funny.
Posted by: Rorschach | October 20, 2009 10:53 AM
And people are starting to take notice.
Posted by: Thorne | October 20, 2009 11:00 AM
Jer @ #15 said:
Well, naturally! I'd be much happier if the rest of the world would do what I want, instead of listening to everyone else.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 20, 2009 11:06 AM
Alyson Miers @ #60:
Not to mention that they've been known to report "members" who have left the church as still members to boost their membership numbers even further. Getting off the official church rolls supposedly involves a bunch of beaureacratic bullshit.
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
October 20, 2009 11:13 AM
-I must say in the Catholics' defense, the premise of the debate sort of put them at a disadvantage. One side attacking the other, and the other side defending itself? Kind of puts the pro-Catholic side in an argumentative corner.-
The catholic church has ALWAYS claimed superior morality and goodness, direct from God and through Jesus. 'How very christian of them' then to try to defend their supposed superiority against actual fact.
The fact that they failed to prove the central reason given for their dogma being worthwhile is telling in and of itself.
Posted by: aagrajag | October 20, 2009 11:26 AM
Perhaps Donohue and others foresee eventual victory for their side because of their unbridled sexuality
Not unbridled, exactly, just grossly irresponsible.
And victory? Only if "victory" looks like some Mathusian nightmare...
Posted by: aagrajag | October 20, 2009 11:29 AM
(misspelling)
Malthusian, that is to say.
Lousy felony juice...
Posted by: mmfwmc
|
October 20, 2009 11:35 AM
@phantomreader42 #58
Thanks for the correction. That is actually my position :)
One question I have is simply a matter of fact that I'd like to be prepared for if anyone brings it up again. Widdle brought up a point that members of the SS were required to renounce Christianity when they joined(or maybe just Catholocism can't remember exactly).
Is this true? It contradicts something I read once, but can't remember where. Does anyone have links to source material for or against?
Posted by: Hampus | October 20, 2009 11:41 AM
Aw man, Stephen Fry is a role model of mine. Would've been brilliant to have been there... Didn't even know about it... *sniff*
Nice to know it'll be on television soon tho:)
Posted by: mmfwmc
|
October 20, 2009 11:47 AM
Also, the most amazing part was that Fry and Hitchens brought up several current aspects of church policy that are definitely bad.
An audience member asked the Archbishop "Of which current policy of the RCC are you most ashamed?" His response "I am not ashamed of anything."
This is a man that is proud that the church is sheltering a fugitive from justice. That they elevated Thomas More to be a patron saint in the year 2000,* a man who burned people at the stake for owning English copies of the bible.
Those are just two things off the top of my head that simply boggle my mind. This guy is either the scum of the earth, or sat there and happily violated one of the commandments he claims to hold so dear.
Posted by: llewelly | October 20, 2009 11:53 AM
You can find this claim on sites like conservativetruth.com and americanthinker.com. It's certainly a popular belief. Interestingly, it's missing from the wikipedia page, and more importantly, every history of the SS, the Third Reich, or WWII that I've ever read.Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
October 20, 2009 11:53 AM
Rorschach wrote: "Uhuh. All those good christian germans that joined the party and/or fought in the war must have been "no true christians" somehow, seeing that Germany was an overwhelmingly christian country at the time,whether catholic or protestant."
Umm, I didn't say anywhere that plenty of Christians didn't collaborate with, or for that matter join, the Nazi party; nor did I say they failed to be Christians if they did so. (So your "no true Scotsman" remark is irrelevant.) It doesn't, however, follow from any of this that Nazism was a Christian movement; it pretty emphatically was not--and pretty obviously many of its values were anti-Christian Which explains in no small measure the long and acrimonious conflict between the Nazis and both the Catholic Church and, among Protestants, the Confessing Church. (Niemoeller and Bonhoeffer, anyone?)
If you want to engage with what I actually said, feel free to start any time now.
Gorton wrote:
"According to the Catholic Church itself that means he lived and died a Catholic."
So, if Stalin never officially left the Eastern Orthodox Church, we'd still have to consider him an Eastern Orthodox Christian? That would be, well, kind of dumb.
"And aside from that, the religious appologetic acrobatics about "But in his private life" - fuck his private life. Hitler's private life wasn't what killed all those Jews and started World War Two. It was his public life.
Hitler's public life was very much Catholic, his support was in part based on him being a Catholic, his party's structure was even modeled on Catholicism."
Somehow I managed to get all the way through Ian Kershaw's biography of Hitler, and Evans's THE COMING OF THE THIRD REICH, which are standard works in English, without once running into Hitler's modeling of his party on the Catholic Church. Nor do what I have any idea what you mean about his public life being Catholic. As I've said more than once already, his public policies were notably anti-Catholic.
I think the Catholic Church has plenty of evils on its conscience; adding Hitler, though, is a stretch, to put it mildly.
Posted by: mmfwmc
|
October 20, 2009 11:54 AM
*Patron saint of Politicians! Awesome.
Posted by: aplaceinthestar
|
October 20, 2009 12:00 PM
Matt @ 55 -
Hitchens was very much a left-of-centre Trotskyite in the 1970s while he was still living in the UK. His views have become more moderate since he moved to the US. He's certainly not right-of-centre by any definition; he's kind of all over the place, politically speaking. He says he's a single-issue voter on the defense of civilization - see his wiki article that has a tolerable explanation of his political views (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchins)
Posted by: Richard Healy
|
October 20, 2009 12:06 PM
I was there too.
An absolute rout. But brilliant fun to listen to The Hitch in full flow.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 20, 2009 1:05 PM
Not "struggle". "Fight".
You see, in German, there's just one word for both of these, and the primary meaning of Kampf is "fight".
Darwin, of course, went on to explain in the next sentence that the "struggle for life" can be a literal fight, but can also mean that a plant at the edge of a desert struggles for life against the drought. This translates just fine. But too few people have read it.
Not just simply because they were a competing organization?
(From the point of view of a totalitarian party, every other organization is a competing one.)
Good point.
Posted by: SirBedevere | October 20, 2009 1:13 PM
No wonder they're having so much trouble finding people to be priests:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/priest_shortage_forces_vatican_to
Note: This link *is* to The Onion, and you all presumably know aht that means...
Posted by: Justin | October 20, 2009 1:35 PM
The Catholic apologists' comments on the article are annoying. Especially these gems:
"The Church is a force for good because it is there; it is a foundation stone of our identity; remove it and we would suffer a loss of bearings potentially catastrophic to the well being of society."
Completely nonsensical drivel.
"All the news media in Britain are too afraid (or all cultural marxists?) to opening speak about God – talk about self-censorship! It’s as though we’re in China…"
Or maybe they just don't want to.
"Of all the gifts the Church has given to the World, including music, art, charitable organisations and social justice projects, none of these compare with the primary function of the Church – to save souls. Salvation! That is what the Church has given the World.
Meanwhile, what do Fry and Hitchens offer the World but nihilism and oblivion?"
It never ceases to amaze me how people can be so smugly ignorant.
Posted by: Strangest brew
|
October 20, 2009 1:45 PM
Father Bernhard Stempfle
Catholic priest...co-editor of Mein Kampf...anti Semitic...Hitler's advisor.
Probably knew a little to much about shenanigans apparently had been a go between to secure some papers that detailed Adolfs penchant for exotic sex!
And some implied dealings with the Murder/Suicide of Geli Raubal a vamp that had caught Adolf's eye...and apparently a bullet from Hitler's Walther pistol..
All the police involved in investigating this 'suicide' were elevated in status a year later when the Nazi party came to power!
After they were apparently persuaded discretion was the flavour of the century in this particular unpleasantness.
Most involved were murdered during the Night of the Long Knives in 1933 including Father Bernhard Stempfle....the twist is the story is that it is rumoured that this atrocity where upwards of 85 dissidents and irritants to der Fuhrer were silenced was condoned even encouraged by the Catholic church!
Posted by: wasd
|
October 20, 2009 1:49 PM
Its too bad the I have not found a video yet. I suspect BBC world will only show fragments. Now the only argument I know is the “the Catholic church has lots of members so it must be doing something right”... tripple A has millions of members but you don't hear them claiming the moral highground or claiming credit good in the world. I mean besides the occasional jumpstart in the middle of nowhere during torrential rains. Thats actually kind of useful and yet I still doubt they could get away with covering up severe systemic institutional child abuse.
Posted by: Strangest brew
|
October 20, 2009 1:50 PM
# 78
Little bit more...
"Geli was given a Catholic burial, even though to bury a suicide in hallowed ground was against church rules. The priest, Father Johann Pant, wrote to a French newspaper in 1939: "They pretended she committed suicide. From the fact I gave her a Christian burial you can draw your own conclusions."
Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
October 20, 2009 1:59 PM
David Marjanovic:
You wrote:
"Not just simply because they were a competing organization?
(From the point of view of a totalitarian party, every other organization is a competing one.)"
I'd say for both reasons: yes, the Nazis opposed virtually any sign of independence on the part of non-Nazi organizations throughout Germany; but I think it was the existence of an independent moral auhority in the churches that especially ticked Hitler and company off; he regarded traditional Christian values like mercy and pity with unbounded contempt, and he wanted to create a new kind of National Socialist German, uncorrupted by those effete, not to mention Jewish-derived values.
I'm a little unclear what your point is with regard to the meaning of Kampf or kämpfen (for both of which "fight" or "struggle" are equally correct English translations). If you're saying that Hitler's position doesn't accurately reflect the views of Darwin, I took especial pains to make clear that I think Hitler wasn't relying on Darwin, but on Social Darwinists--a rather different matter.
You went on to say, regarding this quotation:
And aside from that, the religious appologetic acrobatics about "But in his private life" - fuck his private life. Hitler's private life wasn't what killed all those Jews and started World War Two. It was his public life.
"Good point."
No, actually, it's not a good point. Catholicism played no important role in Hitler's public life, as I indicated above. Again, I'm happy to attribute any number of crimes to the Catholic Church; but they actually have to stick. Hitler was not a Catholic mass-murderer.
Posted by: sidhe
|
October 20, 2009 2:27 PM
A little late to the party, but the comment @ 9 about battered women...out of curiosity, is there a connection between battered woman syndrome and Stokholm syndrome? It would make sense to me, but I don't know much about psych. I always sort of thought there was a connection between religion and a form of Stockholm Syndrome. It abuses you one way or another, makes you unhappy, and yet you still get all fuzzy and attached to it. Bizarre.
Posted by: Richard Healy
|
October 20, 2009 2:30 PM
The debate is set to be broadcast on the BBC world service on November 7th.
Based on entering UK into the search parameters, I got this back.
Nov 7th: 7.10, 15.10 and 20.10.
Nov 8th: 01.10, 7.10, 15.10 and 20.10
http://www.bbcworldnews.com/Pages/SchedulesByFormats.aspx?TimeZone=418&StartDate=07/11/2009&EndDate=08/11/2009&Format=Text
Find out for yourself in your country.
http://www.bbcworldnews.com/Pages/Schedules.aspx
Posted by: Desert Son
|
October 20, 2009 2:30 PM
Aaron Baker,
It's disingenuous of defenders of faith to attribute Hitler's motivations at the feet of atheism, i.e. at the feet of not believing in gods. Whatever antagonism Hitler had against religions owes to the monomaniacal pathology of dictatorial absolutism. Hitler invoked theistic romance (Catholicism included) in service to swaying a populace to invest in him the authority he craved and wielded with such utter cruelty and hideous malice. So it is a good point that he was a Catholic. The Catholic Church's crimes are many, including complicity in the work of that most famous of Austrian assholes. It matters that Catholicism was an implicit and instrumental factor in the horrors of Nazi fascism. Hitler did not do those things in service to atheism. He may never have done those things in explicit service to Catholicism, but the Catholic Church sure went out of its way to get in on the action, and Hitler did not go out of his way to sever attachment to Catholicism, however much he might have wanted Catholicism to ultimately answer to him.
The original point, that so many defenders of faith point to Hitler, Mao, and Stalin as exemplars of an atheist doctrine, is false and ignorant. It is not false and ignorant, however, to demonstrate the intimacy of relationship between Hitler and Catholicism (as just one example of dictators employing the cult power and pervasive influence of religion in service to their own pathology).
Catholicism does not get a pass on the events of World War II.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Strangest brew
|
October 20, 2009 2:48 PM
http://www.davnet.org/kevin/essays/hitler.html
Essay of some length and very interesting reading of the link b'twixt 'n' b'tween Hitler and Catholicism.
seemingly well researched...make your own mind up!
Certainly not the spin the RCC prefer methinks....
Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
October 20, 2009 3:17 PM
Desert Son:
Would it be too much to ask that you read what I wrote before going off on a tear about it?
In my first posting, I said:
"[Hitler] was never an atheist. . . .
Joined to these was a belief in an only vaguely defined God or destiny ([Hitler]used both words pretty much interchangeably), which he came to be convinced had chosen him to be the saviour of Germany."
I don't feel I have any special competence to evaluate your psychological speculations about Hitler, so I won't.
A further point: obviously (to me, even if you think otherwise), the Catholic Church, to the extent that it was complicit in Nazi crimes, bears responsibility for those crimes. This is a complicity, however, shared by lots of people and organizations (some religious, some secular) in Nazi Germany and in Nazi-occupied Europe. If you look for something other than varying degrees of accommodation to the regime--for resistance, in other words, it was always fitful, always confined to a minority, and always ineffectual. The Social Democrats and the (much maligned) Communists) resisted for a while, at no cost to anyone but themselves. Towards the end, a small number of conservatives in the army and civil service were brave enough to attempt an assassination (again to no avail). There is, unfortunately, nothing uniquely vicious about the accommodations of the Catholic Church during these years.
Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
October 20, 2009 3:26 PM
I should have said "nearly always ineffectual."
It occurred to me after posting that one way in which tCatholic Churchmen did signally do the right thing in these years was when they publicly attacked the Nazis for their policy of killing the disabled. The principal instigator of this protest was Bishop Clemens von Galen.
Unfortunately, though the specific program (T4) attacked by the Bishop was canceled, killings of the disabled continued, but not in the same numbers.
Posted by: Tacroy | October 20, 2009 3:59 PM
I think Aaron Baker has a great point, though - Christianity has a perfect, unblemished historical record, because anyone acting in an un-Christian manner is not a Christian! Of course, if you apply this standard fairly, you'll find that the Catholic Church is not Christian, the Pope is not Christian, the Vatican is not Christian, America is not a Christian nation, and (in what is quite possibly the greatest of ironies) Jesus Christ was not a Christian!
Thank you, Aaron Baker, for providing such a wonderful insight - without you, we might not have known that "Christian" is an entirely meaningless label.
Posted by: LightningRose
|
October 20, 2009 3:59 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7014335.stm
I rest my case.
Posted by: Tacroy | October 20, 2009 4:03 PM
Err, to clarify, I meant that Jesus could not have been considered a Christian. Obviously he was, in fact, Jewish.
Posted by: kural.myid.net
|
October 20, 2009 4:32 PM
The church's programs in impoverished regions feed the poor and tend the sick...
Baloney, poppycock. Apart from Hitchens's excellent rhetorical takedown of the Ghoul of Calcutta the "blessed Teresa" there is a more disturbing factual work by Dr. Aroup Chatterjee, "The Final Verdict". When you are done reading Chatterjee's book, you can continue to believe the Teresa myth only by dumping your conscience. The next time someone asks you, "How many hospitals have atheists built?" Ask them, "How many has Teresa built?" And watch them cringe/tremble with anger as you calmly answer for them, "ZERO!"
Posted by: Badjuggler | October 20, 2009 4:34 PM
Organised. Emphasised. Institutionalisation. Will someone please buy those Brits a "Z" key for their keyboards?!
Posted by: Sean | October 20, 2009 4:47 PM
Was Hitler an atheist?
Hitler, in Mein Kampf, public speeches and private conversations often makes mention of God and his Christian beliefs. Hitler greatly admired Jesus and other religious figures like Martin Luther. The claim that Hitler was an atheist is a myth; spread by dishonest apologists and the misinformed public repeating the nonsense. There is overwhelming evidence that reveals Hitler believed in God. There is zero evidence where Hitler claimed to be an atheist.
Did Hitler use Darwin's theory of evolution to justify his ideas of racial supremacy?
Hitler used selective breeding - which is a form of eugenics. It has nothing to do with Darwin's theory of evolution via natural selection. Selective breeding has been around for thousands of years - probably since the invention of agriculture. Farmers often use selective breeding to achieve desirable traits in crops and livestock. Hitler used these ideas to promote racial supremacy and purity - not only as a tool to further justify his anti-semitism/judaism, but also his religious beliefs.
Anti-semitism/judaism existed throughout Christiandom at the time - a result of centuries of dehumanising Jews by blaming them for the death of Christ. The hatred of the Jew stemmed from Christianity and accusations of deicide - not science or atheism.
Hitler's views on race:
Hitler believed mixing of race was a sin against God. Historically, as I'm sure many Americans are aware of, many Christians despised the idea of racial mixing - which was fuelled by religious ignorance and bigotry.
Quoting Hitler:
"The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the following:
(a) Lowering of the level of the higher race;
(b) Physical and intellectual regression and hence the ......beginning of a slowly but surely progressing sickness.
To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the eternal creator." - Hitler, Mein Kampf. Note: atheists don't believe in the will of an eternal creator.
More quotes revealing Hitler's theistic beliefs and views on race:
"for the fall of man in paradise has always been followed by his expulsion." - referring to the biblical Genesis where sin/impurity resulted in Adam and Eve's expulsion from Eden (paradise).[1]
"To be sure, he sometimes palms off his women on influential Christians, but as a matter of principle he always keeps his male line pure. He poisons the blood of others, but preserves his own." Note: Hitler is accusing the Jews of poisoning the blood of others; creating more "impurity/sin" - leading to further expulsion from God's intended paradise.[1]
"Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image [in this case the Aryan race] of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise." - Hitler believed that by eradicating racial impurity, the Aryan race would revert to how God originally intended; they would once again be in the likeness of God [God's Image as referred to in Genesis]. By achieving this, they would be able to attain paradise.[1]
Was Hitler for or against secularism?
In Mein Kampf, Hitler claimed Jews were of this world - that their religion (unlike Christianity) didn't prepare them for the hereafter. One of the original meanings of the word secular, is: of this world. Hitler also shows he favours religious education over secular education:
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith..." - Hitler, April 26, 1933
Did Hitler hate Christianity?
No. Hitler attempted to create one unified regime based on "positive Christianity"[1][4] - this form of Christianity was typical of the more extremist forms of Christianity that we see today and throughout history: anti-atheism, anti-homosexuality, anti-liberalism, anti-freedom of speech, anti-secularism, anti-semitism/judaism, etc. At most, Hitler criticised the corruption in the Church and parts of the Catholic doctrine, like: transubstantiation - criticism that is a norm amongst Protestants and some Catholics [2][3]. Hitler - contrary to popular belief - was also anti-abortion [where Aryans were concerned]. German women caught having "needless" abortions were punished with hard labor. Those doing the abortions risked execution [6]. Almost everything that Hitler was for or against bares striking similarity to current hard-line Christian trends.
Hitler had the view that liberalism and the countless branches of Christianity were leading to Christianities downfall. To counter this, he attempted to create the unified Reich Church. In his mind, this would eradicate sectarianism and prevent "true-Christianity" from collapse:
"Without clearly delimited faith, religiosity with its unclarity and multiplicity of form would not only be worthless for human life, but would probably contribute to general disintegration." - Hitler. [1]
"But if out of smugness, or even cowardice, this battle is not fought to its end, then take a look at the peoples five hundred years from now. I think you will find but few images of God, unless you want to profane the Almighty." - Hitler.[1]
"The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine."
"So far as the Evangelical Confessions are concerned we are determined to put an end to existing divisions, which are concerned only with the forms of organization, and to create a single Evangelical Church for the whole Reich.... And we know that were the great German reformer [Martin Luther] with us to-day he would rejoice to be freed from the necessity of his own time and, like Ulrich von Hutten, his last prayer would be not for the Churches of the separate States: it would be of Germany that he would think and of the Evangelical Church of Germany." - Hitler, in his Proclamation at the Parteitag at Nuremberg on 5 Sept. 1934
Concluding thoughts:
Hitler was certainly not an atheist. Almost everything Hitler stood for - e.g. anti-atheism, anti-homosexuality, anti-abortion, anti-secularism, traditional family values, etc, were remarkably similar to current hard-line Christian trends. Christianity for Hitler was, using his own words: its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine. This was the "true-Christianity" that Hitler admired. The sort of Christianity that, as history will contest: "made it great". Hitler believed that if action wasn't taken, Christianity would become a convoluted mess and disintegrate - it would lose its meaning and God belief would come to an end. These ideas - involving both Germanic Protestants and Catholics willing to mix Church with State - soon became a radicalised and horrific attempt to preserve God belief in an increasingly secular world.
Reference and recommended further reading:
1) Mein Kampf - Adolf Hitler
2) The Holy Reich: Nazi conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945 - by Richard Steigmann-Gall, Cambridge University Press.
3) Was Catholic Hitler "Anti-Christian"?- On the Trail of Bogus Quotes By Dr.Richard C. Carrier. http://www.richardcarrier.info/writings.html
4) Hitler's Christianity - extensive resource. Includes photos: http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
5) Concordat Watch: http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showtopic.php?kb_header_id=752
6) The Nazi Connection by Gloria Steinem: http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/speakout/steinem.html
Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
October 20, 2009 4:50 PM
Tacroy wrote:
"I think Aaron Baker has a great point, though - Christianity has a perfect, unblemished historical record, because anyone acting in an un-Christian manner is not a Christian! Of course, if you apply this standard fairly, you'll find that the Catholic Church is not Christian, the Pope is not Christian, the Vatican is not Christian, America is not a Christian nation, and (in what is quite possibly the greatest of ironies) Jesus Christ was not a Christian!
Thank you, Aaron Baker, for providing such a wonderful insight - without you, we might not have known that "Christian" is an entirely meaningless label."
I'm really starting to believe that this is all an elaborate joke. I make a point, and then, in response, someone characterizes what I said in a way that doesn't remotely resemble what I said.
Slowly now, for people who have trouble thinking and chewing at the time: this is what I said:
"I didn't say anywhere that plenty of Christians didn't collaborate with, or for that matter join, the Nazi party; nor did I say they failed to be Christians if they did so."
" . . .the Catholic Church, to the extent that it was complicit in Nazi crimes, bears responsibility for those crimes."
"There is, unfortunately, nothing uniquely vicious about the accommodations of the Catholic Church during these years." (Read it carefully, Tacroy; I didn't say "nothing vicious," I said "nothing uniquely vicious." Got it now?)
Maybe Tacroy has just discovered the No True Scotsman fallacy, and thinks it's a handy replacement for all that time-consuming reading. Maybe he (she) needs an explanation of the fallacy.
Very well: it's an illegitimate effort to dismiss evidence disconfirming your hypothesis by shifting a definition to exclude the disconfirming evidence. E.g. he may have been born in Edinburgh, but no true Scotsman would picnic nude with a troupe of cub scouts!
I never once defined "Christians" or "Christianity" to exclude bad behavior; in fact I drew attention to bad behavior by Christians more than once. Moreover, I never said that behaving like Hitler made one not a true Christian. I said, instead, that there is considerable evidence Hitler was no longer a Christian by the time he came to power; I said this because the evidence indeed exists, and because Christianity ISN'T an entirely meaningless label. There are ideas that are Christian, and ideas that are non-Christian, or indeed anti-Christian. That Nazism contains many ideas contrary to orthodox Christian teachings is, or should be, uncontroversial.
By the way, just to be entirely clear, I certainly agree that it's possible, in the pursuit of unquestionably Christian principles, to be a mass murderer. But Hitler wasn't Cortes, or Torquemada, or Cromwell. Nazism, like it or not, was primarily a secular movement.
Plain enough?
Posted by: Steven Mading
|
October 20, 2009 5:24 PM
Aaron, the problem is that you claimed the Nazi regime was contrary to Catholicism. That's the claim you made that doesn't seem to hold water. Now, yes it's not fair that you got lumped in with the no-true-Scotsman fallacy promoters who's only real criteria for "is this philosophy compatible with this religion" is whether or not it would be embarassing to say it is. But you could help your own case a lot by actually explaining then WHAT it is about the Nazi movement, explicitly, that makes you claim it is not compatible with Catholicism. Without mentioning that, your post looks identical to those who are merely thinking "it's not compatible because it's evil, and I refuse to accept that the religion can be evil." and that's all there is to their argument. If you want to claim you're doing something more sophisticated then that, then explain WHAT the conflict is between Nazism and Catholicism. If it's more sophisticated than just "Catholic good, Nazi bad", then explain what it is. Show your work.
From where I stand, I don't see the big incompatibility (in fact, the part of Nazi rhetoric dealing with lying about the Jews so that they get blamed for a great many problems they didn't cause has a long tradition rooted in the Catholic church), but I'm willing to listen if you'll actually explain it and not just browbeat us with the same assertions over and over.
Posted by: Steven Mading
|
October 20, 2009 5:38 PM
And another important point, Aaron - for any "X" you care to choose, religious or otherwise, the question of whether Hitler personally believed in X for real is a different question from whether or not he made X be an integral part of his political rhetoric. If he was successful at making X be an integral part of the political rhetoric, then X does deserve some blame for that political rhetoric, even if he was being dishonest such that in private he didn't really believe X. In fact, whether it was part of the political rhetoric is actually far MORE important than what he believed personally, since without the followers gained by use of that political rhetoric, Hitler would have been a lone harmless kook forgotten by history. The damage he caused was caused by his public statements, not his private ones.
Posted by: latichever | October 20, 2009 5:46 PM
In my initial post, I simply wanted to argue that atheism is neither necessary nor sufficient for what most people would consider ethical, humane behavior. I also believe--the weak hypothesis here--that religious belief is not bar to ethical, humane behavior.
Someone asked whether Mao or Stalin committed their acts in the name of atheism. Well, aside from noting that Marx/Engels called religion the "opiate of the people," they believed that religion is an impediment to a fair organization of society--so it could be argued that some of what was done in the name of Marxism, good or bad, was an outcome of anti-theism.
Moreover, although much evil has been done in the name of religion, often the religious motivation is just a fig-leaf at best for other motives.
When the Spanish conquered the Americas and committed genocide against the natives, they made sure to take along the priests, but the motive was gold and other material benefits. Centuries before that, crusaders talked religion but were looking for fiefdoms. The sack of Constantinople during one of the crusades was greed pure and simple.
Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
October 20, 2009 5:48 PM
Sean, to respond to some of your points (which are substantive, unlike a lot else I've seen today):
"The claim that Hitler was an atheist is a myth."
I fully agree.
"Did Hitler use Darwin's theory of evolution to justify his ideas of racial supremacy?"
No, but he did pick up Social Darwinian tags that he obviously took very seriously, believing as he did in a struggle of all races for existence. He also was committed to the "scientific" racism of writers like Chamberlain and de Gobineau. Incidentally, the anti-semitism that became common in late 19th-c. Europe may have sprung from Christian anti-semitism, but this new variety was secularized, and tended to base itself on allegedly scientific theories. This is the version of anti-semitism that Hitler took up in a particularly virulent form. (Hitler consistently maintained that his views were supported by science.)
"Hitler attempted to create one unified regime based on "positive Christianity."
"Positive Christianity" was a nazified form of Christianity that Hitler promoted for a while in the 30s in hopes that it would take over the Protestant churches in Germany. It experienced strong resistance and abjectly failed to attain this goal, after which Hitler wasted little time on it. It would be a gross exaggeration to say that his regime was ever "based" on Positive Christianity.
If Christian theism was so important to Hitler, it's hard to see why he tolerated those Nazis (like Alfred Rosenberg) who rejected it completely and made no secret of their hostility, or those (like Himmler) who dabbled in a revived paganism. I also think the hostile tone he took towards Christianity in conversations with his closest followers (men like Goebbels and Speer) is a good indication that little (if anything) peculiar to Christianity survived in his thinking. He certainly believed in God (and destiny). At times he spoke respectfully of (an Aryanized) Jesus. Did he think in the 30s and 40s that this Jesus was his saviour? I don't think there's good evidence that he did. If you find some, please share it with me.
Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
October 20, 2009 6:50 PM
Steven Maden:
I appreciate your reading what I said with some care.
It's entirely fair to ask for some elaboration of how Catholicism (or some other form of Christianity) differs from Nazism. I would keep in mind (it's more problematic for me than for you) Richard Evans's point, made more than once in his excellent books on the Third Reich, that there was a definite common ground between Nazism and several attitudes common to conservative Germans since before the First World War. Many (non-Nazi) Germans were anti-semitic in varying degrees, though most without the virulence displayed by Hitler; many were hostile to democracy, and especially to the Weimar Republic; most conservative Germans (and probably some further to the left as well) disapproved of abortion and homosexuality. Conservative Germans were also, pretty much by definition, anti-communist and anti-socialist.
What's true of conservative Germans was also largely true of the German churches, certainly of the Catholic Church, in and out of Germany. The Catholic Church had as part of its official dogma the belief that all Jews were complicit in the Crucifixion. (This belief was shared by conservative Protestants, too.) The Catholic political party in Germany, the Zentrum, was not a friend of the Weimar democracy. Traditional Catholic attitudes on abortion and homosexuality need no explication here--and again, similar views were common among conservative Protestants.
With all that said, however, the Catholic and Protestant churches placed a value on human life very different from that of the Nazis. Thus the vehement opposition of churchmen to the T4 program, a systematic murder of the disabled. There's much to disapprove of in the social teaching of the churches, but they consistently opposed Social Darwinism. Christian anti-semitism, obnoxious as it was, was not genocidal. It didn't claim to be based on an allegedly scientific theory, according to which Jews were immutably the enemies of the rest of humanity. (Note please that the theories undergirding Nazi antisemitism were entirely secular.)
Incidentally, you might perform this experiment if you have an extremely conservative older relative: hostile to gays and abortion, racially bigoted to some extent, jingoistically patriotic. Do you, having chalked all those features up, conclude that this person is a Nazi? I submit that, despite those similarities, Nazism is rightly seen as something far more virulent.
I'd add here that another reason for thinking that Nazism and Christianity weren't completely compatible is the undoubted fact that conflict occurred, as spelled out at some length by Evans and other writers. One result of this conflict was a series of show trials, in which numerous priests and monks were tried for sexual irregularities (maybe with more basis in fact than was previously suspected). Moreover, the penchant of the regime to "coordinate" all organizations and activities along Nazi lines resulted in a fight, ultimately won by the regime, to close sectarian schools and other independent religious organizations. (This is all rather odd behavior in an authoritarian AND Christian regime.) Undoubtedly conflict arose in part because of Nazi intolerance of any alternative center of power; but it also arose in part, I think, out of Nazi intolerance for any alternative source of values. Mercy, pity, respect for even the disabled--these are not notions that Hitler cared for. (I'd also suggest that the Nazi regime was characterized by a fair amount of anti-clericalism, something more common in left-leaning secular governments of the time: e.g. the Spanish Republic, or the French Third Republic--not common at all in Christian theocracies.)
Anyway, this is already too long. I did appreciate your comments. Feel free to respond.
Posted by: stealthdonkey
|
October 20, 2009 6:50 PM
Roameo @ 23
"Although all communists are atheists, not all atheists are communists"
The last time I said that I was directed to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism
which is an interesting read. Whether or not it's REALLY communism is up for debate I guess.
Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
October 20, 2009 7:16 PM
Sorry, Steven, for misspelling your name.
As to your posting about public rhetoric vs. private opinions, I'm trying to be less long-winded.
I'd say that I just don't think Christianity had much (if any) effect on Hitler's big, publicly expressed ideas. What made Hitler such a catastrophe for everyone else was 1) his murderous hatred of the Jews; 2) his insistence on reversing the consequences of Germany's defeat in 1918; and 3) his belief that Germany required Lebensraum, and that this rightfully could be seized from Slavs, given their (in Hitler's eyes) inferiority.
These were all part of his public rhetoric, and (I think) he fully believed them privately.
1) The antisemitism takes us into the much-contested question of what the racialist antisemitism of the late 19th and early 20th century owes to traditional Christian antisemitism. I think the later kind in some sense emerged from the earlier; but the "new" antisemitism had secular motivations and supported itself by appeal to (spurious) science. Though, as I've said above, traditional antisemitism persisted in the Christian churches in Germany in the early 20th century, it differed in intensity from Hitler's antisemitism. Did this traditional version contribute to his antisemitism? It's impossible to say; but at least as important would have been a number of Austrian and German antisemitic rabble-rousers whose writings Hitler encountered in Vienna and Munich. Also probably crucial to its especially poisonous quality was the German defeat in 1918, and Hitler's belief (shared by many on the Right) that Jews had played a part in it.
2 and 3 are examples of militaristic nationalism (primarily secular in motivation in the early 20th c., though religion at times played some role), with traditional German disdain for Slavs thrown in (and again made more poisonous by Hitler's racial doctrines).
A big ideological mess, to the antisemitic component of which maybe Hitler's childhood Catholic education contributed. But it might not have. And he could have come to all these ideas without an input from Christianity whatsoever.
Posted by: Anri
|
October 20, 2009 7:25 PM
Aaron Baker sez (in very small part):
Hmm. I think what might be bothering many of us here is that there seems to be very little, in practice that separates Nazism from Christianity.
For many of us, the question is less "Was Hitler a Catholic?", and much more "Was it possible to promote Catholicism and Nazism simultaneously - and with the same sort of rhetoric?"
The answer to the first question is a bit vexed, Hitler's internal level of commitment to the Catholic church being information forever lost.
The answer to the second seems, to me at least, to be much more important. If for only for the fact that apparently being a devout Catholic was not an effective deterrent to being a devout Nazi.
Groups for which that can be said do not get to claim moral high ground, in my humble opinion.
(of course, Aaron, you haven't said that they do - but a lot of people do, and they need to have this pointed out to them.)
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
October 20, 2009 7:30 PM
mmfwmc @ # 67: ... members of the SS were required to renounce Christianity when they joined(or maybe just Catholocism ...
There was severe social pressure to do so, at least in the numerically largest section of the SS, which was fairly effective.
Note that Himmler and Bormann were the two Nazi leaders most committed to an anti-christian stance. Neither were atheists, despite Hohne's characterization: Himmler was a neo-pagan, Bormann apparently just anticlerical. The Leader himself was much more (dare I say it?) an accommodationist - and successful enough at it to have been accepted as a Catholic at the highest levels of the church throughout and after his life.
Posted by: Sean | October 20, 2009 7:47 PM
Aaron Baker,
In regards to the "secularized" anti-semitism claim:
Let's not forget, the Nazis used Martin Luther's writings - and early claims of deicide by the Catholic church - a position held by the church into the 1960's. Preaching hate against the Jews was almost the norm throughout Christian history - especially in Europe. People's views didn't change from religious anti-semitism to "secular" anti-semitism at the click of a finger. Although Hitler used "scientific" claims to bolster his efforts, I can't help but feel the "secularized" anti-Semitism claim is some sort of semantic red herring. Christians use "science" all the time to bolster their agendas - whether it's to help justify their homophobic beliefs or claims of intelligent design/creationism. Does that then make it a secular effort? I not so sure. It just means they have an additional toy to play with.
Posted by: speedweasel
|
October 20, 2009 7:52 PM
I love the appeal at the end of the article.
I confidently predict that most people of roughly equal intelligence to Hitchens, as a result of applying their intelligence to the fantastic and superstitious claims of, among others, the catholic church, are already atheists.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
October 20, 2009 7:57 PM
Aaron Baker @ # 71: ... Ian Kershaw's biography of Hitler, and Evans's THE COMING OF THE THIRD REICH, which are standard works in English, without once running into Hitler's modeling of his party on the Catholic Church.
Neither of those authors was primarily concerned with religious-political questions. For a better look at such issues, see Michael Phayer's The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930–1965 and (for the Protestant side) Richard Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945.
Very short version: Hitler played the Christians like a fiddle.
Here Widdecombe was right: the Church stayed in step with prevailing standards in the Third Reich no less than it did in the eras of the Crusades, witchburners, Conquistadors, etc.
Hitler's Jesus was an Aryan, a muscular antagonist to the Jews. That The Leader bothered to construct such a vision indicates he hardly rejected the project-anything-you-want-on-him Messiah, but found it worthwhile to include him in his personal mythology. How many atheists do that?
Posted by: Nebula99 | October 20, 2009 8:30 PM
This whole Hitler thing has been gone over way too many times. It's quite hard nowadays to find an objective, unbiased source describing Hitler's religious beliefs. Trying to associate the position of one's opponent with Hitler is overdone and not useful. To criticize catholic morality or Xian morality in general, describe that morality, demonstrate that many/most xians agree with it or act in accordance with it, then demonstrate that it makes the world a worse place. Same process for Atheist morality: prove it exists, then prove it's good or bad.
Posted by: Desert Son
|
October 20, 2009 9:19 PM
Aaron Baker,
Sorry I'm so late getting back to this, I'm just now getting home.
I apologize, as I missed this in my reading. Thank you for pointing me back to it, and I mean that thanks sincerely, not sarcastically.
This is a good point and argues that his Catholicism (to whatever degree he practiced it) was not necessarily an explicit factor in the formulation of his crimes, though I remain unconvinced that it was not at all a factor.
I would say that the issue of religious belief, and how it was manipulated by Hitler, does nonetheless play a role in the orchestration of his fell deeds, because it enabled not only the superstitious belief that his psyche and rationalization could latch onto as "savior," but also colored the rhetoric he used in an effort to cement public support. I should stress that it was by no means the only rhetorical element he invoked. I believe this assertion of multiple rhetorical elements supports your own contention that complicity in his crimes does not rest solely at the feet of the Catholic Church.
You go on to make that very point (unless I'm reading you incorrectly, which is entirely possible, given I missed your statement prior) when you note,
I agree: neither the Catholic Church, nor Catholic belief systems, bear the sole responsibility for horrors both nascent and fully realized in Germany and Europe from 1922-1945 C.E.
In response to that, I would, however, insist that the Catholic Church does not get a pass on those crimes in which it was complicit. You stated a similar sentiment when you posted,
I only hope that distribution of complicity does not allow an organization such as the Catholic Church to recede from closer scrutiny of their crimes, as the Church has attempted to do, for example, regarding the issue of Catholic priests that molest children (most recently in the mode of "Other churches do it, too!"). You observed,
True, and to my mind, that's a reason to maintain scrutiny on the Catholic Church (as well as others complicit in Nazi crimes). I would, however, suggest that complicity by the Catholic church in Hitler's crimes was potentially made more possible, as well as potentially more attractive, by virtue of Hitler's rhetorical invocation of divinity (or destiny, whichever that fascist shithead invoked) as causal and justified in his actions, as well as by whatever allegiance he may have (nominally or truly) had to the organization.
The larger point I was trying to make was that the Catholic Church does not get a pass on its complicity during the years in question. I suspect you and I agree on that point. That I did not address my post sufficiently to yours is my fault, and I apologize that I did not concentrate on what you posted.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but the skullduggery in which the Catholic Church has, over the years and in various contexts, engaged in as part of its policy and defense mechanism makes me more suspicious of them. You are certainly correct to say the Catholic Church wasn't the only organization involved. I wonder, nevertheless, when will that particular organization stand to account for its crimes and complicity?
Regardless, I apologize for my poor reading comprehension regarding your post, and I submit that perhaps we differ in our perception of degree. I think I read your statement of
as somehow absolving the Church of complicity, and that is my error, for which I'm sorry. I'm not sure your posts have convinced me that Hitler was not a Catholic mass-murderer, and they haven't convinced me his crimes were an overwhelmingly secular venture, but I did misread, and thank you for your clarification.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Aaron Baker | October 20, 2009 9:29 PM
Well, re the most recent comments,
one reason I think the distinction between two kinds of antisemitism is more than just a semantic red herring is this: the newer antisemitism was eagerly taken up by people who could never be accused of Christianity: e.g. Bormann, Himmler, Alfred Rosenberg,and I'm sure plenty of others.
I haven't read Steigmann-Gall or Phayer, so I can't comment on them. As I've said (more than once now), I've never maintained that Hitler was an atheist; nor would I deny that he "played the Christians like a fiddle." So I don't even know to what extent these two writers disagree with me; but I'll give them a read.
As to the comment: "I think what might be bothering many of us here is that there seems to be very little, in practice that separates Nazism from Christianity," I'm reminded of a statement by the great historian of ancient law, Tony Honore. After a lengthy comparison between Justinian and Stalin, he says: "With all its defects Christianity is a more humane moral guide than Marxism" (TRIBONIAN, p. 30). I actually think this statement is debatable, not least because (for all its defects) Marxism has motivated many people of genuine good will to good acts. But if the comparison were between Christianity and Nazism, I wouldn't hesitate to agree. Nazism strikes me as about as close to a wholly vicious ideology as human beings can come. Did it occasionally inspire a good work here or there? It really doesn't matter, given what's on the other side of the balance. Even in practice, Christianity has, I think, done better. You needn't see this as much of a compliment to Christianity.
Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
October 20, 2009 9:34 PM
No biggy, Robert. It's nice to be having a Pharynguloid conversation and not insulting each other.
All the best.
Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
October 20, 2009 9:42 PM
To change the subject completely:
"I wished that there still existed a great Catholic apologist like Chesterton or Belloc, someone who was not only brave and prepared to square up to the Hitch, but was his intellectual equal."
There's an essay by George Orwell in which he describes the arguments of Chesterton and Belloc as "silly-clever." Somehow I don't think Hitchens (with all his defects) would be too fazed by either of them.
Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
October 20, 2009 9:56 PM
I think I've found the quotation (although Orwell might have used "silly-clever" more than once). It's from a review of a book by C.S. Lewis in 1944. It should go over pretty well here:
...................
[I was] reading, a week or two ago, Mr C. S. Lewis’s recently-published book, Beyond Personality…The idea, of course, is to persuade the suspicious reader, or listener, that one can be a Christian and a ‘jolly good chap’ at the same time. I don’t imagine that the attempt would have much success…but Mr. Lewis’s vogue at this moment, the time allowed to him on the air and the exaggerated praise he has received, are bad symptoms and worth noticing…
A kind of book that has been endemic in England for quite sixty years is the silly-clever religious book, which goes on the principle not of threatening the unbeliever with Hell, but of showing him up as an illogical ass, incapable of clear thought and unaware that everything he says has been says has been refuted before. This school of literature started with W. H. Mallock’s New Republic, which must have been written about 1880, and it has a long line of practitioners - R. H. Benson, Chesterton, Father Knox, ‘Beachcomber’ and others, most of them Catholics, but some, like Dr Cyril Allington and (I suspect) Mr Lewis himself, Anglicans.
The line of attack is always the same. Every heresy has been uttered before (with the implication that it has been refuted before); and theology is only understood by theologians (with the implication that you should leave your thinking to the priests)…
One reason for the extravagant boosting that these people get in the press is that their political affiliations are invariably reactionary. Some of them were frank admirers of Fascism as long as it was safe to be so. That is why I draw attention to Mr C. S. Lewis and his chummy little wireless talks, of which no doubt there will be more. They are not really so unpolitical as they are meant to look.
.................
I'm disappointed that he didn't mention Belloc.
BTW, Chesterton and Belloc were both proponents of the traditional kind of antisemitism (and as neither was an ignorant peasant, neither had any excuse).
Posted by: manicstreetpreacher | October 21, 2009 2:11 AM
I was there myself. It was an embarrassment for the parties of God.
Here’s my write-up:
http://edthemanicstreetpreacher.wordpress.com/2009/10/20/hitchens-fry-post-mortem/
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | October 21, 2009 2:42 AM
The Nazi Party was basically protestant, Hitler's Catholicism was part of how they managed to win Catholic votes. It was part of how he got elected. Also the heirarchal structure of the Nazi party, as well as the liturgy and rhetoric all borrowed from the Catholic Church.
It didn't play "no important role."
I am not saying the blame for Hitler lies completely with the Catholic Church, the party he headed was after all, not Catholic, what I am saying is that it is not a good example to raise when trying to say "But non-Catholics..."
Particularly if you are part of an organisation which counts membership based on babies getting splashed with water.
The Catholics cannot have it both ways. They cannot have baptism as the ultimate arbiter of membership (Thereby inflating their numbers) and claim that Hitler wasn't a Catholic.
Posted by: DLC
|
October 21, 2009 4:50 AM
It does not matter if Pol Pot was an atheist, theist or believed in the holy can of spam. His acts were carried out not in the cause of atheism but in the cause of his brand of autocracy -- it had the trappings of communism but there were as far as I know no elections and no classless society.
In the broad sense, the others mentioned by the person who put forth the "communist leader gambit" are the same. They did not murder in the cause of the non-faith. They murdered to continue themselves in power or to further their political ends. The Roman Catholic Church does not have this fig leaf to hide behind. Their leaders killed or ordered killings (or other nefarious activities) claiming all the time that they were acting to further the cause of the faith.
Posted by: ihedenius
|
October 21, 2009 8:33 AM
Really ?
CIA factbook says "total population: 1.01 male(s)/female (2009 est.)"
that is 1% more males.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
October 21, 2009 12:02 PM
Aaron Baker - My personal feeling is that, had Hitler's military adventures succeeded, he had plans for an "improved" Christianism (along with changes in art, architecture, diet, music, urban planning, and a full range of other personal hobbyhorses) for a nation of grateful Germans.
Heresy? Sure. As one who counts Christian heretics as, well, Christians, that doesn't disturb my categorization of him.
Incidentally, the most informative Hitler study that I've read (in terms of supplementing the major works, not as a stand-alone) is Frederic Spotts's Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics. It doesn't shed any light on the current discussion, but you'll never see the bastard in the same way after reading it. Timothy Ryback's Hitler’s Private Library is also worthwhile.
If only Susan Sontag had lived to write her proposed book on Himmler...
(I’d intended to send this last night, but Movable Type decreed otherwise.)
Posted by: speedweasel
|
October 21, 2009 11:24 PM
In other news, the vast majority of all serial killers wear shoes and drink coffee in the morning.
I forgot who said that, but it was someone here and it wasn't long ago. "Excelsior to you, gentle sir."
Posted by: Mr. David M. Beyer | October 21, 2009 11:53 PM
What's interesting is that the article judges the persuasive impact of the two sides rather than the accuracy of their statements. On one hand it's nice to see journalism that attempts to be objective. The writer even says he's a catholic and that it was "a little discouraging," but doesn't force his story to fit his preconceived notions. Kudos to the Guardian.
On the other hand, by focusing on the presentation they miss the opportunity to claim objectivity by clarifying what is supported with evidence.
All in all, I wish we could read articles like this more often.
Posted by: Elliot Robert | October 22, 2009 1:23 AM
Some one on the dawkins forum posted it in mp3 format from his private server.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,4477,Intelligence-Squared-debate-Catholics-humiliated-by-Christopher-Hitchens-and-Stephen-Fry-,Andrew-M-Brown---Telegraphacouk
link it towards the bottom.
Posted by: Elliot Robert | October 22, 2009 1:25 AM
Never Mind, The recording is Horrifically poor.
Posted by: Anri
|
October 22, 2009 1:54 PM
Aaron Baker @#109 -
Of course, you are correct in regards to the good inspired by Chrisatianity vs. Nazism. I expressed myself terribly badly in the phrase I used.
I suppose I was just trying to think of any evil acts that were comitted by the Third Reich that were not done, at one time or another, in the name of the Christian god. Although the details differ (mainly based on advenced in technology), I can't really think of any.
Many, if not most, of the terrible crimes against humanity that were perpetrated by the Church(es), were overseen, actively supported, and often headed and driven by the foremost religious scholars and philosohpers of the time... even when they started out as 'grass-roots' movements, they generally were co-opted by the leadership as soon as a certain level of popularity was reached.
In any case, we're clearly not in serious disagreement (which is good, because you're in far better command of the facts on this subject than myself!)
Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
October 23, 2009 12:36 PM
Anri:
I don't disagree in the least that the Christian churches have many atrocities on their account books--and yes, typically excused or glorified by the "best and brightest" of the time.
Thank you for forcing me to clarify my remarks.
Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
October 23, 2009 1:16 PM
Bruce at #114:
Just a few points:
Hitler was never elected. He was invited to join the government by rightwingers around President Hindenburg who were impressed by the strong showing of the Nazis in the 1932 elections (in the July 31, 1932 Reichstag election, the Nazis won 37.4% of the vote; in the November 6 election, they went down a bit to 33.1%). Partly because of this strong electoral showing, Hitler was offered the Chancellorship, which he took up on January 30, 1933.
It's important, by the way, to emphasize that not only was Hitler never elected to any position, but the Nazi Party NEVER had more than 43.9% of the vote in a free election (this was the election of March 5, 1933, held after plenty of Nazi terror was already afoot). I say this because there's a common, and false, cliche to the effect that the Nazis were elected into power.
(For all these election figures, see the handy table in Alan Bullock, HITLER AND STALIN: PARALLEL LIVES, pp. 980-981.
Now Hitler certainly tried to appeal to Catholic voters, but it has to be said that he had only limited success in this area. In their first big electoral success (July, 1932), the Nazis (acc. to Evans, THE COMING OF THE THIRD REICH, p. 294) received 14% of the Catholic vote, 40% of votes by non-Catholics. I therefore think the importance of Catholics in Hitler's coming to power is very debatable.
Another point: for the second time, you've said that the organization, "liturgy," and rhetoric of the Nazi Party were strongly influenced by the Catholic Church. I just haven't seen any historian I've read on this subject make that claim. If you have have a cite, please bring it to my attention.
I hope I've made clear that I'm not an apologist for Catholic (or Protestant) behavior during the Third Reich. But I do think Nazism is better regarded as a post-Christian (and in some, not all, respects anti-Christian) phenomenon.