Posted on 01/26/2002 1:14:46 PM PST by Paul Ross
The Cross vs. the Swastika
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]()
The Cross vs. the Swastika |
I vividly remember a high school conversation with a friend Id known since we were eight. Id pointed out that Hitler was essentially a pagan, not a Christian, but my friend absolutely refused to believe it. No matter how much evidence I presented, he kept insisting that Nazi Germany was an extension of Christianity, acting out its age-old vendetta against the Jews. Not that he spoke from any personal study of the subject; he just knew. Hed heard it so many times itd become an article of faith one of those things everyone knows.
Flash forward 25 years. A few weeks ago my last column (http://www.boundless.org/2001/regulars/kaufman/a0000528.html) refuted a number of familiar charges against Christianity, including the Christianity-created-Nazism shibboleth. Even though I only skimmed the subject, I thought the evidence I cited wouldve been hard to ignore; I quoted, for example, Hitlers fond prediction that he would destroy Christianity and replace it with a [pagan] religion rooted in nature and blood. But sure enough, I still heard from people who couldnt buy that.
Well, sometimes myths die hard. But this one took a hit in early January, at the hands of one Julie Seltzer Mandel, a Jewish law student at Rutgers whose grandmother survived internment at Auschwitz.
A couple of years ago Mandel read through 148 bound volumes of papers gathered by the American OSS (the World War II-era predecessor of the CIA) to build the case against Nazi leaders on trial at Nuremberg. Now she and some fellow students are publishing what they found in the journal Law and Religion(www.lawandreligion.com), which Mandel edits. The upshot: a ton of evidence that Hitler sought to wipe out Christianity just as surely as he sought to wipe out the Jews.
The first installment (the papers are being published in stages) includes a 108-page OSS outline, The Persecution of the Christian Churches. Its not easy reading, but its an enlightening tale of how the Nazis faced with a country where the overwhelming majority considered themselves Christians built their power while plotting to undermine and eradicate the churches, and the peoples faith.
Before the Nazis came to power, the churches did hold some views that overlapped with the National Socialists e.g., they opposed communism and resented the Versailles treaty that ended World War I by placing heavy burdens on defeated Germany. But, the OSS noted, the churches could not be reconciled with the principle of racism, with a foreign policy of unlimited aggressive warfare, or with a domestic policy involving the complete subservience of Church to State. Thus, conflict was inevitable.
From the start of the Nazi movement, the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognized as a purpose of the National Socialist movement, said Baldur von Scvhirach, leader of the group that would come to be known as Hitler youth. But explicitly only within partly ranks: as the OSS stated, considerations of expedience made it impossible for the movement to make this public until it consolidated power.
So the Nazis lied to the churches, posing as a group with modest and agreeable goals like the restoration of social discipline in a country that was growing permissive. But as they gained power, they took advantage of the fact that many of the Protestant churches in the largest body (the German Evangelical Church) were government-financed and administered. This, the OSS reported, advanced the Nazi plan to capture and use church organization for their own purposes and to secure the elimination of Christian influences in the German church by legal or quasi legal means.
The Roman Catholic Church was another story; its administration came from Rome, not within German borders, and its relationship with the Nazis in the 1920s had been bitter. So Hitler lied again, offering a treaty pledging total freedom for the Catholic church, asking only that the church pledge loyalty to the civil government and emphasize citizens patriotic duties principles which sounded a lot like what the church already promoted. Rome signed the treaty in 1933.
Only later, when Hitler assumed dictatorial powers, did his true policy toward both Catholics and Protestants become apparent. By 1937, Pope Pius XI denounced the Nazis for waging a war of extermination against the church, and dissidents like the Lutheran clergyman Martin Niemoller openly denounced state control of Protestant churches. The fiction of peaceful coexistence was rapidly fading: In the words of The New York Times (summarizing OSS conclusions), Nazi street mobs, often in the company of the Gestapo, routinely stormed offices in Protestant and Catholic churches where clergymen were seen as lax in their support of the regime.
The Nazis still paid enough attention to public perception to paint its church critics as traitors: the church shall have not martyrs, but criminals, an official said. But the campaign was increasingly unrestrained. Catholic priests found police snatching sermons out of their hands, often in mid-reading. Protestant churches issued a manifesto opposing Nazi practices, and in response 700 Protestant pastors were arrested. And so it went.
Not that Christians took this lying down; the OSS noted that despite this state terrorism, believers often acted with remarkable courage. The report tells, for example, of how massive public demonstrations protested the arrests of Lutheran pastors, and how individuals like pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer (hanged just days before the war ended) and Catholic lay official Josef Mueller joined German military intelligence because that group sought to undermine the Nazis from within.
There is, of course, plenty of room for legitimate criticism of church leaders and laymen alike for getting suckered early on, and for failing to put up enough of a fight later. Yet we should approach such judgments with due humility. As Vincent Carroll and David Shiflett write in their book Christianity on Trial (to repeat a quote used in my last column), It is easy for those who do not live under a totalitarian regime to expect heroism from those who do, but it is an expectation that will often be disappointed. . . . it should be less surprising that the mass of Christians were silent than that some believed strongly enough to pay for their faith with their lives.
At any rate, my point is hardly to defend every action (or inaction) on the part of German churches. In fact, I think their failures bring us valuable lessons, not least about the dangers of government involvement in and thus power over any churches.
But the notion that the church either gave birth to Hitler or walked hand-in-hand with him as a partner is, simply, slander. Hitler himself knew better. One is either a Christian or a German, he said. You cant be both.
This is something to bear in mind when some folk on the left trot out their well-worn accusation that conservative Christians are Nazis or fascists. Its also relevant to answering the charge made by the likes of liberal New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd: History teaches that when religion is injected into politics the Crusades, Henry VIII, Salem, Father Coughlin, Hitler, Kosovo disaster follows.
But its not Christianity thats injected evil into the world. In fact, the worst massacres in history have been committed by atheists (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) and virtual pagans (Hitler). Christians have amassed their share of sins over the past 2,000 years, but the great murderers have been the churchs enemies, especially in the past century. Its long past time to set the historical record straight.
The complete text of this article is available at http://www.boundless.org/2001/regulars/kaufman/a0000541.html
He doesn't explain his point very well and neither do you. It's another data point in a fossil-record progression: dinosaurs and birds becoming more like each other as you go back in time until one scientist lumps fossil A in the dinosaur bin and another lumps it in the bird bin. Sort of like what you see with humans and apes as you go down in the sediments.
Thanks for strenghening my point. There have been about 250 million fossils found from 250,000 species and only handful of missing links, virtually all of which have been discredited or proven frauds.
How about that Confuciusornis sanctus? The best "evidence" for evolution and evolutionists can't even figure out if it is conclusive proof that birds evolved from dinosaurs or conclusively proof that birds did NOT evolve from dinosaurs.
Evolution makes less sense than an epidsode of Star Trek. It's an absolute joke.
We do so love it when you resort to technical terminology in response to the information presented on this thread.
Please keep up the "good" you're doing work; you're creating a great impression, I can assure you.
You have to put this in proper perspective, Martin says. To the people who wrote the paper, the chicken would be a feathered dinosaur.
What a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive.
That's not a hind leg. That's a front leg / wing.
Likewise, the intermediate creature whose limb was half leg, half wing, would fare poorly -- it couldn't fly, nor walk well. Natural selection would eliminate it without a second thought.Do you even have the wit or the integrity to be embarrassed?
Observe how many -- zero! -- of his fellow creationists have jumped in to support ol' sparkey. Even they are ashamed.
Here's an example in this article from August 2000 of how the tide has been turning in favor of the dinosaur-bird link since Martin spouted off in 1995.
"Right now, the thing that is closest to what we see in the bones of birds is in the bones of coelurosaurs," said John Rensberger, a UW geological sciences professor and curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Burke museum.Junior linked this for you earlier but you seem to still be unaware.. . .
"It doesn't necessarily prove that birds had to derive from dinosaurs," Rensberger said of the new research. "But, at least from the data we've seen, that appears to be a logical conclusion."
How would you know? You've demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge of the Theory of Evolution, and you have a very poor grasp of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Any effort on our part to bring your knowledge up to modern levels has been repayed with rants and raves and very little substance. Your position might be taken more seriously if you didn't repeat the same old canards that have been taken to task time and again on these threads. This is the one reason we have The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource -- so we don't have to keep covering the same ground over and over again.
Yes. And the reason schools have remedial reading classes is to help bring the slow students up to speed. But sometimes, alas, there's an unfortunate kid who is doomed to keep repeating remedial reading over and over again. In such cases, it's reasonable to inquire as to how many resources will be expended on such a "student" before the effort is abandoned, and he is left to find his rightful place -- at the bottom of the heap.
Evolution completely contradicts thermodynamics. It's based on the idea that mutations are massive and beneficial and human history shows mutations are almost exclusively detrimental. There are numerous species too complex with too many interdependent organs to have evolved.
There is more "evidence" for global warming than this utter stupidity. You have absolutely NO credibility if you don't acknowledge that evolution is a theory and very weak one.
What is man becoming on the evolutionary cycle? Don't you think it's possible that space aliens are actually evolved humans that escaped this planet and occassionally return?
Would you say that everything you know you learned from ICR?
No one in the right mind would accept a theory that provides NO evidence. There are 250 million fossils and only a handful of "missing links," virtually all of which have been discredited or proven frauds.
No one in the right mind would reject established laws of science like thermodynamics, make up imaginary laws to cancel out the impact of that law and proclaim evolution as credible.
No one in their right mind can imagine mutations being massive and beneficial when human history reflects just the opposite.
No sane person can imagine the duckbilled platypus evolving. Or amoebas turing to dinosaurs to birds to land mammals to dolphins back to less intelligent land mammals to human beings. Evolutionist can't even connect the dots on their own lame theory.
Oh, wait, never mind... :)-
I know because there is no FOSSIL record for evolution. There are 250 million fossils and the best your buddies can come up with "supporting" evolution is Confuciusornis sanctus, extinct bird fossils that the evolutionists can even agree on the meaning. One group of evolutionists think it proves birds evolved from dinosaurs and the other think it proves that birds did NOT evolve from dinosaurs. That's best evidence you've got. There should be tens of thousands of transtitional fossils (as Darwin admitted) if evolution occurred.
It must be tough being oh so much more knowledgeable than everyone else. Obviously, though, you continue to repeat the same old tired canards. So, in the interest of possibly, just possibly, opening your eyes to the complete lack of information on your part, I am including all the transitional fossil, fossil record and bird evolution links to bring you up to speed on the state of the art in evolutionary studies:
Evidence for Dinosaur-Bird Transition, The (A Sidebar Thread) (2001-07-09)
Feathers fly over Chinese fossil bird's legality and authenticity (2000-02-18)
Fossil Pollen in Grand Canyon Overturns Plant Evolution (2000-05-08)
Fossil Record: Becoming More Random All the Time, The (2000-05-14)
Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation," The (2001-06-30)
Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation," The [ Thread II] (2001-07-01)
Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation," The [ Thread III] (2001-07-04)
Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation," The [ Thread IV] (2001-07-06)
Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation," The [ Thread V] (2001-07-08)
Fossilized Proteins Help With History Of Evolution (2000-12-20)
Microscopic Bone Evidence Supports Dinosaur-Bird Evolution Link
New Theory Of The Evolution Of Bird Flight Linked To Parental Care (2002-01-30)
Open Letter from Smithsonian to Nat. Geo. Society on Dino-Bird Claims (1999-11-09)
Proofs of Macroevolution [Missing]
Taking Wing: A New View of the Origin of Bird Flight Emerges (2002-01-10)
Evolution completely contradicts thermodynamics. It's based on the idea that mutations are massive and beneficial and human history shows mutations are almost exclusively detrimental. There are numerous species too complex with too many interdependent organs to have evolved.
Once again you show your ignorance of thermodynamics, and simply because you believe something to be too complex to be possible naturally does not make it so. Even so, I'm giving you a list of thermodynamics and irreducible complexity links. Avail yourself of them that you might keep up with the rest of us. Constantly going back to fetch you is becoming tiring.
Second Law of Thermodynamics in the Context of the Christian Faith, The
Why Evolutionary Algorithms Cannot Generate Specified Complexity, Dembski
There is more "evidence" for global warming than this utter stupidity. You have absolutely NO credibility if you don't acknowledge that evolution is a theory and very weak one.
Gee, with this much evidence in favor of your pet theory (you do have evidence for your position, don't you?) you ought to publish a paper. I'm sure the Nobel committee would give it all the attention it deserves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.