The Cross vs. the Swastika

I vividly remember a high school conversation with a friend I’d known since we were eight. I’d 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. He’d heard it so many times it’d 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 would’ve been hard to ignore; I quoted, for example, Hitler’s 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 couldn’t 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.” It’s not easy reading, but it’s 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 people’s 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 can’t 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.” It’s 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 it’s not Christianity that’s 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 church’s enemies, especially in the past century. It’s 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

I just finished reading HITLER'S CROSS, by Erwin Lutzer. Hilter was a pagan, and was surrounded by pagans. He outlawed most Christian churches, and required allegience from all the rest. Einstein, an atheist, said,

"Being a lover of freedom, when the [Nazi] revolution came I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors o fthe newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks.

Only the church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for supressing the truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the church alone has had the courage and persistance to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly."

You such a fool? Sound law? There is ONE piece of evidence FOR evolution (if you find one -- 1-800-8enyart between 9 and 10 ET on weekdays).

The fossil record is barren. There is not one fossil that provides evidence of macroevolution and there should be millions. The largest group of mammal fossils are rat fossils and there has been absolutely no evolution observed.

As far as mutations. Yes, mutations DO often cause death. But, evolution is based on the idea the mutations are good and numerous. The whole theory is based on mutations.

Only an idiot can imagine a whale or dolphin evolving into a mammal. Both mammals and whales and dolphins have multiple functions necessary for land or water. Dolphins or whales could not have possibly evolved. Nor could the duckbilled platypus.

Then, we have a accomplished scientist, Dr. Michael Behe, who proves conclusively in Darwin's Black Box that complex organisms have too many interdependent parts to have evolved step-by-step.

Even many evolutionist acknowledge that evolution is a grossly flawed theory. There isn't one scientist that will claim evolution involves laws. That's stupid to even make the claim and shows how much you've been brainwashed.

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. 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 can't 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."

But it's not Christianity that's 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 church's enemies, especially in the past century. It's long past time to set the historical record straight.

It's absolutely disgraceful for a Christian to defend a theory with all the credibility of global warming. It's a lie and it's the religion of the godless. Evolution has sent more than a few people to hell. And there is not ONE piece of evidence that proves evolution. Yet, sadly, you've been brainwashed into believing it.

Dolphins and Whales

We can demonstrate one such transition problem by using the example of dolphins and whales. These mammals bear their young alive and breathe air, yet spend their entire lifetime in the sea. Presumably, in order for dolphins and whales to have evolved, they must have originated from a land mammal that returned to the water and changed into a sea creature. But dolphins and whales have so many remarkable features upon which their survival depends that they couldn't have evolved! It would be a lot like trying to change a bus into a submarine one part at a time, all the while it is traveling at 60 miles per hour.

The following is a list of transitions evolutionists have to account for in the dolphin in its evolution from some unknown land dwelling pre-dolphin:

× The nose would have to move to the back of the head.

× Feet, claws, or tail would be exchanged for fins and flippers.

× It would have to develop a torpedo shaped body for efficient swimming in the water.

× It would have to be able to drink sea water and desalinize it.

× It's entire bone structure and metabolism would have to be rearranged.

× It would need to develop a sophisticated sonar system to search for food.

Could the dolphin acquire these features gradually one at a time over a period of millions of years? What about the transitional stages? Would they have survived with just some of these features? Why is there a total absence of transitional forms fossilized?

Consider the whale and its enormous size in comparison with the plankton it feeds upon. The whale is a nautical vacuum cleaner, with a baleen filter. While it was "developing" this feature, what did it feed upon before? For me, it takes a great stretch of the imagination to picture the evolution of dolphins and whales.

BTW, evolution contradicts the second law of thermodyanamics. Evolution is based on the theory that the universe is getting stronger, evolving into something better, going from disorder to order. ESTABLISHED scientific laws, including the second laws, clearly show the universe is going from order to disorder, winding down, getting weaker and that everything in the universe will eventually die.

The only evolutionist answer to this problem is yet more unproven theories that they assume cancels out the established laws of science when it comes to evolution.

I present facts that refute evolution and this all you can come up with? So, so typical. Because that's all evolutionists can do. You have no evidence for this lame fairy tale. When presented with facts that contradict the theory, all you have is empty insults. Try refuting the evidence against evolution. What are you afraid of? That you've been brainwashed with a pseudo-science? You're the one proving that you are incapable of thinking for yourself. If you were and were a legit Christian, you'd be looking at the evidence and arguments that refute evolution and trying to counter those arguments.

The reality is Hitler and Darwin agreed on a whole when it came to race.

And Hitler and the vegetarians agreed on a whole when it came to diet and nutrition.

Does that make vegetarianism evil?

You have made the logical error of guilt by association, after having failed to distinguish that to the extent Nazis relied on Darwin for anything, it was an EXCUSE for their evil policies; not the impetus. If Darwinism were the impetus for evil Fascist policies, then, as has been pointed out to you already, every evolutionary biologist should turn into a mass murderer like Hilter did.

That they don't is proof that Evolutionary Theory doesn't CAUSE mass murder; that Hitler WAS a mass murderer is proof that something OTHER than Darwin made him do it.

You're almost too stupid to correspond with. In fact, answer the criticism if you're capable. What did dolphins and whales evolve into? At some point, one or the other had to evolve from land mammals into mammals that lived in water.

Only IDIOT can't understand that process could not possibly have taken place in an evolutionary manner. Whales and dolphins could not have developed the multiple features necessary for survival in water while still on being land mammals or the species would die. Nor could whales and dolphins have developed the necessary features in water while possessing the numerous features necessary to live on land.

But, the "genius" that you are, perhaps you could explain how whales and dolphins evolved from being land mammals to ones that live in water. Give it a try.

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.