Replies

I don't agree with all of Luther's statements about Jews, but the point that all other religions lead to something else besides God is true -- from a Christian perspective. I am sure Luther would be an advocate of evangelism of the Jews and showing Christian love to them. It is unfair to take a few quotes and label that as only what he believed -- especially considering the extent of his writings.

Luther wrote an entire book called 'The Jews and their Lies'. It's available online. It wasn't a few quotes.

I find it significant that you object to my use of Hitler's and Luther's words to show in the first instance that he was clearly a Christian, and in the second case to show that he was clearly a very rabid antisemite. Yet you, on the other hand, apparently hold to a far weaker case that because Hitler and the Nazis invoked some bastardized social Darwinist beliefs, somehow the scientific theory of Evolution, which has nothing at all to do with antisemitism and says very little about race, is responsible for Naziism. One would hope as a scientist you might be able to step outside and display some objectivity; but apparently your belief system trumps your objectivity.

So let me run you through this again.

Luther was a vicious antrisemite who preached the enslavement of the Jews and the execution of their rabbis (this isn't a debating point, BTW, it's a fact).
Hitler was baptized and brought up a Catholic, invoked his Christianity in public pronouncements as a reason to persecute the Jews, and throughout his whole life used biblical references.
The two major religions in Germany in 1933 were Evangelical Lutheranism and Christianity.
The Nazis did little more than carry out the program that Luther preached. The people who carried it out were mostly Evangelical Lutherans and Catholics.

Yet despite all this evidence, you claim that the enterprise was inspired by an Anglican Clergyman in another country, who (to my knowledge) never said anything anti-semitic in his life, and who came up with a purely scientific theory of the origin of species.

I would have thought that you, of all people, would have gotten the point that you can use guilt-by-association and selective quotations (though with Luther you don't have to select very much; he was a nasty man) to make a far stronger case for the role of Christianity in the Holocaust than for Darwinism. Indeed, some kind of a legitimate case can be made for a role for Christianity, though I wouldn't say it was the main cause. But Nazi-ism, by and large, was a self-contained ideology that used Christian arguments when it suited, and Darwinist arguments when it suited; and alternately claimed itself to be spiritual and scientific and socialist.

Yet the only thing that you seem to have concluded is that when I do it it's somehow wrong, but when you do it it's OK. Remarkable.