Joseph Farah, grand poobah of the Worldnutdaily, is once again peddling the "evolution leads to Hitler" nonsense. I know this has all been said before, but let's say it all again just to make sure no one misses it. Farah is making a big deal out of an article that shows that German archaeologists, no doubt under pressure from Hitler's regime, often distorted the evidence to try and show that the Germans were the Master Race:
It demonstrates the way Adolf Hitler's SS not only embraced evolutionary theory, but sought to manipulate fossil discoveries to bolster its case for a master race.
While the article, by Heather Pringle, author of "The Master Plan," focuses on Nazi archaeologists' efforts to show that Germans were direct descendants of the first men to use tools and make weapons, it also illustrates how the genocidal mania of Hitler could only be built on a foundation of evolution.
Apparently it doesn't occur to him that, since he just admitted that these archaeologists were distorting and manipulating the evidence, they weren't actually engaging in science at all, or supporting evolutionary theory, they were doing quite the opposite - they were misusing science and evolutionary theory to prop up their political ideology. This is precisely the opposite of what science does and it reached conclusions that are strongly opposed by evolutionary theory.
The fact is that Hitler was a manipulator who used whatever he had at his disposal to convince people to go along with his master plan. One could just as easily point to the innumerable statements he made justifying his ideology with Christian and Biblical references and arguments. This is trivially easy to do. Indeed, Mein Kampf declares, "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Likewise, from a speech in 1922:
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.
It's also trivially easy to trace the roots of his fanatical hatred of Jews straight back to Christian theologians, most obviously Martin Luther, the great German reformer and founder of Protestantism who wrote On the Jews and Their Lies, a vile book that contains passages like this:
What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of Jews? Since they live among us and we know about their lying and blasphemy and cursing, we can not tolerate them if we do not wish to share in their lies, curses, and blasphemy. In this way we cannot quench the inextinguishable fire of divine rage nor convert the Jews. We must prayerfully and reverentially practice a merciful severity. Perhaps we may save a few from the fire and flames [of hell]. We must not seek vengeance. They are surely being punished a thousand times more than we might wish them. Let me give you my honest advice.
First, their synagogues should be set on fire, and whatever does not burn up should be covered or spread over with dirt so that no one may ever be able to see a cinder or stone of it. And this ought to be done for the honor of God and of Christianity in order that God may see that we are Christians, and that we have not wittingly tolerated or approved of such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of His Son and His Christians.
Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed. For they perpetrate the same things there that they do in their synagogues. For this reason they ought to be put under one roof or in a stable, like gypsies, in order that they may realize that they are not masters in our land, as they boast, but miserable captives, as they complain of incessantly before God with bitter wailing.
Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer-books and Talmuds in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught.
Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to teach any more...
Fifthly, passport and traveling privileges should be absolutely forbidden to the Jews. For they have no business in the rural districts since they are not nobles, nor officials, nor merchants, nor the like. Let them stay at home...If you princes and nobles do not close the road legally to such exploiters, then some troop ought to ride against them, for they will learn from this pamphlet what the Jews are and how to handle them and that they ought not to be protected. You ought not, you cannot protect them, unless in the eyes of God you want to share all their abomination...
To sum up, dear princes and nobles who have Jews in your domains, if this advice of mine does not suit you, then find a better one so that you and we may all be free of this insufferable devilish burden - the Jews...
Indeed, one can go back much further in Christian history to find yet more support for this anti-Jewish fervor, even among the early church fathers. St. John Chrysostom wrote in the late 4th century:
The synagogue is worse than a brothel...it is the den of scoundrels and the repair of wild beasts...the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults...the refuge of brigands and dabauchees, and the cavern of devils. It is a criminal assembly of Jews...a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ... a house worse than a drinking shop...a den of thieves, a house of ill fame, a dwelling of iniquity, the refuge of devils, a gulf and a abyss of perdition."..."I would say the same things about their souls... As for me, I hate the synagogue...I hate the Jews for the same reason.
When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire, legal attacks on the Jewish people were common. The Justinian Code, established in the mid 6th century, forbid Jews from building synagogues, reading their sacred texts in Hebrew and celebrating passover. They were even forbidden from giving evidence in any judicial case involving a Christian. In a series of councils in the 12th and 13th centuries, the Lateran Councils, the Catholic Church imposed more and more restrictions upon Jews, including forbidding Christians from giving some types of medical treatment to Jews and requiring Jews (and Muslims) to wear special clothing to distinguish them from Christians. Sounds a lot like Hitler, doesn't it?
Now, the Christian would obviously argue that what Hitler did was distort the true aims of Christianity, and I would agree with them. It is folly to blame Hitler's ideology of hatred on Christianity; his pathology was far deeper than a mere religious belief. But by the same token, neither was he motivated by a zeal for science. He was a manipulator who used every possible means to convince his followers to go along with him and changed his rhetoric depending on the nature of the audience he was speaking to. This should be obvious to any thinking person, which of course leaves Farah out right from the start.
- Log in to post comments
I love this argument: the Nazi's use of evolution language is meaningless (I agree, it is meaningless) but the Nazi's use of Christian language and imagery proves they were Christians. The simple truth is that anything can be co-opted for an evil cause. The Nazis had useful idiots in both camps, scientists and Christians, and they used them to their advantage.
To those who think the Nazis were good Christians, I'll point you to the following.
Rutgers university (that hotbed of fundamentalist Christendom) has a "Nuremberg project" where they are investigating some new documents. One major part of the Nazi Master plan was "The Persecution of the Christian Churches." (I haven't seen a "The Persecution of Evolutionists" document on the Rutgers site, I'll let you know if I do.)
You can find some of this here:
http://www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/nuremberg/nurem…
and especially here
http://www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/nuremberg/nurin…
The editor of the project, Julie Mandel, said:
"A lot of people will say, 'I didn't realize that they were trying to convert Christians to a Nazi philosophy... They wanted to eliminate the Jews altogether, but they were also looking to eliminate Christianity." (the Phildelphia Inquirer, Jan. 9, 2002.)
(Let me try this again. My previous post on this thread was sent off for approval, perhaps because of the N-word: N A Z I. Let's try once more. If both end up in some moderator's queue, I'm sure Ed can handle it.)
I love this argument: the N a z i use of evolution language is meaningless (I agree: it is meaningless) but the N a z i use of Christian language and imagery proves they were Christians. The simple truth is that anything can be co-opted for an evil cause. The Germans had useful idiots in both camps, scientists and Christians, and they used them to their advantage.
To those who think Hitler's ranks were filled with good Christians, I'll point you to the following.
Rutgers University (that hotbed of fundamentalist Christendom) has a Nuremberg project where they are investigating some new documents. One major part of the Nazi Master plan was "The Persecution of the Christian Churches." (I haven't seen a "The Persecution of Evolutionists" document on the Rutgers site, I'll let you know if I do.)
You can find some of this here:
http://www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/nuremberg/nurem…
and here
http://www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/nuremberg/nurin…
The editor of the project, Julie Mandel, said
"A lot of people will say, 'I didn't realize that they were trying to convert Christians to a N azi philosophy' ... They wanted to eliminate the Jews altogether, but they were also looking to eliminate Christianity."
(the Phildelphia Inquirer, Jan. 9, 2002.)
And from a 1945 OSS report: "Important leaders of the National Socialist party would have liked to meet this situation [church influence] by complete extirpation of Christianity and the substitution of a purely racial religion."
Yeah those N azis, they sure were true Christians.
Imagine Hitler in a world without evolution: "I believe that we are the master race and that the Jews all need to die, but there's no way to prove it! Oh, well. Back to painting..."
.........hmm. Remind you of any one? May a few "any ones".
Or anything?
Not the SS, but another organization fondly known by its two initials. Someone's barking up the wrong tree -- woof, woof!
Yikes! Not you Ed! The subject of your post.
Jeez. Ambiguity can be fun, but not when it's unintentional grammatic reference. You do bark, don't you?
And BTW, what's up with this latest "Nypho teachers are after your children," shtick from WorldNut? Trying to slander the public shool system through bogus arguments?
Whether it's Origins or Education, it seems bogus arguments are all the Wingnuts are capable of nowadays.
Well you ahd me up until then Ed. I think one could better argue that due to the nature of the belief system it is amendable to Hitler's type of fascism. It's a believe or else mentality that is not conductive or especially receptive to alternative thought. But I will add that Christianity is such a braod belief system that using it in general as I have done is equally incorrect.
But in no way shape or form can one make even a respectable argument saying the same about evolution, a science theory.
The "Hitler was an atheist" is becoming a repulsive meme. It's especially galling if you believe that many of his crimes were in fact motivated by his religion.
Richard Dawkins was confronted with this idea recently on BBC, and retorted splendidly with a quote that established with no doubt that Hitler was quite Christian indeed.
I dunno, Ed.
I think you draw a consistent line from Chrysostom thru Luther, to Hitler. I was unaware of the specifics.
I am hesitant to paint my religion with a broad brush (as it is at variance with the teachings of other church patriarchs), but you do make a convincing case that an underlying current of violent anti-semitism has been present in Christianity from at least the late 300's A.D. to present. Periodically, it has blossomed into full scale genocidal activity, with at least a modicum of sanction.
What Chrysostom and Luther spoke of, Hitler, it seems, enacted on an industrial scale. To suggest that Hitler was merely a deist or outright atheist, in order to distance his crimes from the faith he claimed to hold is to commit certain fraud.
While I may argue that that undercurrent is a perversion of the teachings of Christ, your point is demonstrated, noted, and unchallenged. The only response of a sincere follower of Christ to this evidence should be sorrow, repugnance, and repentance.
RickD: I wish to see your quote from Dawkins. A link?
Pope Palpadict has also been trying to blame liberalism, and "neo-paganism," for such things as the Holocaust and the pedophile-priest scandals, despite mountains of evidence showing that the atrocities were done by people who at least called themselves Christian, and that the attitudes that led to said atrocities predated liberalism, Darwin, etc. by centuries. This is an organized political campaign of scapegoating, pure and simple.
I agree that the question as to whether or not Hitler himself was a christian has gotten to be more than a bit boring. It is also more than a bit irrelevant. Whether or not Hitler was christian, he rose to the leadership of a country that was clearly predominantly christian, and he was revered by people in more than a few other countries (France, the UK, and even some in the US--most notably the renouned anti-Semite Henry Ford) that were also predominantly christian. And Hitler came to power in part by playing on christian symbols--not much different than the current US president, I might add.
It should be recognized that Hitler did not act on his own. He and his band of not-so-merry-men were supported by more than a few industrialists in Germany and elsewhere, most of whom would likely have called themselves christian. Maybe they did so because they, like Hitler, wanted to get rid of the trade unionists, and maybe they thought that they could control Hitler once he came to power. They obviously erred.
One question that might be of interest: is WorldNutDaily preparing for a "special book" on the subject that they will be selling at exorbitant prices? Wouldn't be unusual if they did so.
The "evolutionism was Hitler's religion" is almost as retarded as blaming school shootings on evolution. Phew. At least nobody is stupid enough to do that.
(Hope my HTML comes though, that's two separate links BTW)
Neo-paganism is responisble for the holocaust and pedophile priests? Being a pagan myself, I have to ask the rational behind that. (And yes, I know it was Pope Palpatine and not the commenter.)
"It demonstrates the way Adolf Hitler's SS not only embraced evolutionary theory"
Hitler also embraced the theory that humans breath air.
Ashley Montagu, probably based on a lot of work by others, noted that Hitler's rejection of evolution cost the Nazi's a lot of lives. Among other bizarre ideas, Hitler thought heritage was passed in the blood, not genetically (seems that's what the Bible says . . .). Consequently, Hitler feared that blood transfusions that included blood from Jews might make his army Jewish -- so he forbade the use of blood banks. Thousands of wounded German soldiers died for lack of blood to transfuse.
Interestingly, the Nazis thought that "Jewish blood" was one particular type which, when the facts were known, was the chief blood type of Germans around Berlin . . .
In any case, there is not a shred of evidence that any politician or military leader in the Third Reich had the faintest clue about how Darwinian evolution worked.
It's not so clear a case as the Soviet thing, where Lysenko led a creationist-style witch hunt against Darwinians, but I have always found it chilling that creationists claim Darwin is friend to both communists and fascists, while it is the creationists who adopt the commie and Nazi views on the issue.
Dexceus: the rationale, such as it is, is that the new Pope is trying to rally the far right, make peace with the Jews (by encouraging them to join him in scapegoating someone else for a change), and pretend to be on top of current scandals without actually attacking such sacred cows as intolerance toward the Enlightenment, hatred of gays, and the Church's total lack of accountability to anyone else. As to why "neo-paganism," it seems pretty obvious that the authoritarians have to deny any connection between their intolerance and the injustes that result from it; so they simply brand anything contrary to their image of themselves as "neo-paganism," regardless of the actual evidence.
Yo, speaking of WorldNutDaily, have you heard anything from the Turbo Porsche guy lately? How about failed propheteer Hal Lindsey?