Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Nazis weren't Christians.
Opinion Journal ^ | MONDAY, MARCH 25 | ROBERT L. BARTLEY

Posted on 03/25/2002 6:29:51 AM PST by Skooz

Edited on 04/23/2004 12:04:20 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Holy Week is by no means all sweetness and light. This Friday Christians mark the crucifixion, a terrible event redeemed by the resurrection three days later. The Jews gather on Thursday for Passover, celebrating the Exodus from slavery as the angel of death skipped Jewish homes during Egypt's tenth plague, the killing of the firstborn. So perhaps it's not an inappropriate time to discuss another terrible topic, the Holocaust, and in particular the divisive issue of Christian culpability in the Nazi genocide of the Jews. It is not the purpose here to dismiss the long history of anti-Semitism in Christian lands. By now most Christians agree this was a sin, and its legacy surely played an important role in laying a groundwork for the Nazis and in muting opposition to the "final solution."


(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-157 next last
To: daiuy
Is it legitimate to condemn religion for historical atrocities? First we had better examine the facts.

divider

I got a call from a gentleman from San Francisco who was exercised about Christian missionaries going into foreign lands. Then he started talking about not only the destruction of indigenous beliefs, but also the destruction of missionaries. That's what he wanted to see happen. He also said that Christians and religious groups are responsible for the greatest massacres of history. It turns out he was quite supportive of Wicca and indigenous religions which worship the Mother Earth force, Gaia. This is essentially the basic foundation for witchcraft.
divider

The assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them.

divider

But a couple of the things that he said were a challenge to me. Not only did he assert that historically missionaries have destroyed cultures and indigenous religions at the point of a gun, but also Christians and religion were responsible for most of the bloodshed in the world, or the great majority of it. I've heard this claim before. I wanted to respond with more detail because I'm sure you've heard these things as well.

I have a tactic that I employ in situations like this that is called "Just the Facts, Ma'am." In other words, there are times when you're faced with objections to Christianity or your point of view that really fail with an accurate assessment of the facts. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them.

The assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. The greatest atrocities committed against man were done in the name of God.

Before I get to the particular facts, there is more than just a factual problem here. There is a theoretical problem as well and I tried to make the point that we must distinguish between what an individual or group of people do and what the code that they allegedly follow actually asserts. The fact is that there are people who do things consistently that are inconsistent with the code that they allegedly follow. But often times when that happens, especially where religion is concerned, the finger is pointed not at the individual who is choosing to do something barbaric, but at the code he claims to represent. The only time it's legitimate to point to the code as the source of barbarism is if the code is, in fact, the source of barbarism. People object to a religion that used barbaric means to spread the faith. But one can only use that as an objection against the religion if it's the religion itself that asserts that one must do it this way, as opposed to people who try to promote the spread of the religion in a forceful fashion in contradiction to what the religion actually teaches.

It's my understanding that much of Islam has been spread by the edge of the sword. That isn't because Muslim advocates were particularly violent. It's because their religion actually advocates this kind of thing. The difference between that and Christianity is that when Christianity was spread by the edge of the sword it was done so in contradistinction to the actually teachings of Christianity. This is when individual people who claim to be Christians actually did things that were inconsistent with their faith.

I've had some people that have told me when I've brought this up, "That's not a fair defense. You can't simply say that those people who committed the Crusades or the Inquisition or the witch burnings weren't real Christians. That's illegitimate." My response is, why? We know what a real Christian is. A real Christian is someone who believes particular things and lives a particular kind of lifestyle. John makes it clear that those who consistently live unrighteously are ipso facto by definition not part of the faith. So why is it illegitimate for me to look at people who claim to be Christians, yet live unrighteous lives, and promote genocide to say that these people aren't living consistently with the text, therefore you can't really call them Christians. I think that's legitimate.

divider

It's not fair or reasonable to fault the Bible when the person who's waving the sword is doing things that are contradictory to what the Bible teaches.

divider

For example, no one would fault the Hippocratic Oath, which is a very rigid standard of conduct for physicians, just because there are doctors who don't keep it. We wouldn't say there's something wrong with the oath, the code that they allegedly follow. We'd say there was something wrong with the individuals who don't live up to the ideals of that code. That is the case frequently where people waving the Bible in one hand are also waving a bloody sword in the other. The two are inconsistent. So it's not fair or reasonable to fault the Bible when the person who's waving the sword is doing things that are contradictory to what the Bible teaches ought to be done.

So that's the first important thing to remember when you face an objection like this. Distinguish between what a person does and what the code they claim to follow actually asserts. Christianity is one thing, and if we're going to fault Christianity we must fault its teachings and not fault it because there are people who say they are Christians but then live a life that is totally morally divergent from what Christianity actually teaches.

As I said earlier, this kind of objection falls when you employ a tactic I call "Just the Facts, Ma'am," and I'd like to give you some of those facts. My assertion as I responded to the gentleman who called last week was simply this: it is true that there are Christians who do evil things. Even take people's lives. This is an indication that these people aren't truly Christians, but it may be true also that people with the right heart, but the wrong head do things that are inappropriate, like I think might have been the case in the Salem Witch Trials.

My basic case is that religion doesn't promote this kind of thing; it's the exception to the rule. The rule actually is that when we remove God from the equation, when we act and live as if we have no one to answer to but ourselves, and if there is no God, then the rule of law is social Darwinism-- the strong rule the weak. We'll find that, quite to the contrary, it is not Christianity and the belief in the God of the Bible that results in carnage and genocide. But it's when people reject the God of the Bible that we are most vulnerable to those kinds of things that we see in history that are the radical and gross destruction of human lives.

Now for the facts.

Let's take the Salem Witchcraft Trials. Apparently, between June and September of 1692 five men and fourteen women were eventually convicted and hanged because English law called for the death penalty for witchcraft (which, incidentally, was the same as the Old Testament). During this time there were over 150 others that were imprisoned. Things finally ended in September 1692 when Governor William Phipps dissolved the court because his wife had been accused. He said enough of this insanity. It was the colony's leading minister, by the way, who finally ended the witch hunt in 1693 and those that remained in prison were released. The judge that was presiding over the trials publicly confessed his guilt in 1697. By the way , it's interesting to note that this particular judge was very concerned about the plight of the American Indian and was opposed to slavery. These are views that don't sit well with the common caricature of the radical Puritans in the witch hunt. In 1711 the colony's legislatures made reparation to the heirs of the victims. They annulled the convictions.

I guess the point is that there was a witch hunt. It was based on theological reasons, but it wasn't to the extent that is usually claimed. I think last week the caller said it was millions and millions that were burned at the stake as witches. That certainly wasn't the case in this country. It seemed that the witch hunt was a result of theological misapplication and the people who were involved were penitent. The whole witch hunt lasted only a year. Sixteen people were hanged in New England for witchcraft prior to 1692. In the 1692 witch hunt nineteen were executed. So you've got thirty-five people. One hundred fifty imprisoned. This is not at all to diminish or minimize the impact of the American witch hunts which resulted in thirty-five deaths. But thirty-five is not millions. It is not hundreds of thousands. It's not even hundreds. It's thirty-five. This was not genocide.

Now in Europe it was a little different. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for practicing witchcraft in 1431. Over a period of 300 years, from 1484 to 1782, the Christian church put to death 300,000 women accused of witchcraft, about 1000 per year. Again, I don't want to minimize the impact of 1000 lives lost a year, but here we're talking about a much, much smaller number over a long period of time than what has been claimed in the past.

In America we're talking thirty-five people. In Europe over 300 years, we're talking about 300,000. Not millions. The sources here are World Book Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Americana . You can also read in Newsweek , August 31, 1992. I was accused of being a liar last week. I'm trying to give you the facts from reputable sources that show that the accusations from last week aren't accurate.

There were two Inquisitions. One of them began right around the end of the first millennium in 1017. It began as an attempt to root out heretics and occurred chiefly in France, Germany, Italy and Spain. The Spanish Inquisition followed in the fourteenth century and was much bloodier. It began as a feudal aristocracy which forced religious values on society. Jews were caught in the middle of this and many of them were killed. About 2000 executions took place. The Inquisition that took place at the turn of the millennium, less than that. So we're talking about thousands of people, not millions.

There were actually seven different Crusades and tens of thousands died in them. Most of them were a misdirected attempt to free the Holy Land. Some weren't quite like that. There were some positive aspects to them, but they were basically an atrocity over a couple hundred years. The worst was the Children's Crusade. All of the children who went to fight died along the way. Some were shipwrecked and the rest were taken into slavery in Egypt.

divider

The statistics that are the result of irreligious genocide stagger the imagination.

divider

A blight on Christianity? Certainty. Something wrong? Dismally wrong. A tragedy? Of course. Millions and millions of people killed? No. The numbers are tragic, but pale in comparison to the statistics of what non-religion criminals have committed.

My point is not that Christians or religious people aren't vulnerable to committing terrible crimes. Certainly they are. But it is not religion that produces these things; it is the denial of Biblical religion that generally leads to these kinds of things. The statistics that are the result of irreligious genocide stagger the imagination.

My source is The Guinness Book of World Records . Look up the category "Judicial" and under the subject of "Crimes: Mass Killings," the greatest massacre ever imputed by the government of one sovereign against the government of another is 26.3 million Chinese during the regime of Mao Tse Tung between the years of 1949 and May 1965. The Walker Report published by the U.S. Senate Committee of the Judiciary in July 1971 placed the parameters of the total death toll in China since 1949 between 32 and 61.7 million people. An estimate of 63.7 million was published by Figaro magazine on November 5, 1978.

In the U.S.S.R. the Nobel Prize winner, Alexander Solzhenitsyn estimates the loss of life from state repression and terrorism from October 1917 to December 1959 under Lenin and Stalin and Khrushchev at 66.7 million.

Finally, in Cambodia (and this was close to me because I lived in Thailand in 1982 working with the broken pieces of the Cambodian holocaust from 1975 to 1979) "as a percentage of a nation's total population, the worst genocide appears to be that in Cambodia, formerly Kampuchea. According to the Khmer Rouge foreign minister, more than one third of the eight million Khmer were killed between April 17, 1975 and January 1979. One third of the entire country was put to death under the rule of Pol Pot, the founder of the Communist Party of Kampuchea. During that time towns, money and property were abolished. Economic execution by bayonet and club was introduced for such offenses as falling asleep during the day, asking too many questions, playing non-communist music, being old and feeble, being the offspring of an undesirable, or being too well educated. In fact, deaths in the Tuol Sleng interrogation center in Phnom Penh, which is the capitol of Kampuchea, reached 582 in a day."

Then in Chinese history of the thirteenth to seventeenth centuries there were three periods of wholesale massacre. The numbers of victims attributed to these events are assertions rather than reliable estimates. The figures put on the Mongolian invasion of northern China form 1210 to 1219 and from 1311 to 1340 are both on the order of 35 million people. While the number of victims of bandit leader Chang Hsien-Chung, known as the Yellow Tiger, from 1643 to 1647 in the Szechwan province has been put at 40 million people.

China under Mao Tse Tung, 26.3 million Chinese. According the Walker Report, 63.7 million over the whole period of time of the Communist revolution in China. Solzhenitsyn says the Soviet Union put to death 66.7 million people. Kampuchea destroyed one third of their entire population of eight million Cambodians. The Chinese at two different times in medieval history, somewhere in the vicinity of 35 million and 40 million people. Ladies and gentlemen, make note that these deaths were the result of organizations or points of view or ideologies that had left God out of the equation. None of these involve religion. And all but the very last actually assert atheism.

divider

Religion, and Biblical religion in particular, is a mitigator of evil in the world.

divider

It seems to me that my colleague Dennis Prager's illustration cannot be improved upon to show the self-evident capability of Biblical religion to restrain evil. He asks this in this illustration. If you were walking down a dark street at night in the center of Los Angeles and you saw ten young men walking towards you, would you feel more comfortable if you knew that they had just come from a Bible class? Of course, the answer is certainly you would. That demonstrates that religion, and Biblical religion in particular, is a mitigator of evil in the world.

It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God.

61 posted on 03/25/2002 10:59:17 AM PST by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Seydlitz
Seydlitz...

If one is really interested, they may go to google, type vatican nazi south america. It is replete with references, countless numbers. Also one might type in gold with vatican nazi. Here again too much information for me to cite for you.

62 posted on 03/25/2002 11:00:02 AM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
What the OSS did is the OSS's business. I'm aware of Nazi-loving charges against the Vatican leveled by various Serbian and professional Catholic-bashing websites, but I'd like to see citations from a reputable source, that the Vatican (not renegade priests like the Croatian Frenciscans) was involved in the escape of Nazi war criminals.
63 posted on 03/25/2002 11:03:06 AM PST by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Romulus

The Defamation of Pope Pius XII

64 posted on 03/25/2002 11:09:26 AM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
Fantastic post. Thank you.
65 posted on 03/25/2002 11:13:20 AM PST by cicero's_son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Romulus
A concordat is nothing more than an attempt to negotiate a legal document to ensure the Church's ability to function lawfully and unmolested with its just liberties intact

They where in the same bed together while the Jews where being murdered.

from Catholic Encyclopedia

...just as all other laws when properly promulgated bind the people, so concordats, inasmuch as they take on the form of civil laws are binding on the citizens of the country, and particularly the state officials; so much so that any infringement of them is equivalent to a violation of the civil laws.

66 posted on 03/25/2002 11:20:10 AM PST by ibme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
I did as you asked. The information was from very disinterested sources, like the American Atheist's News service. The rest was based on Ustashe-Vatican financial links. There might be some truth to that, as Pavelic was Italy's candidate for leader of Croatia. Not much about moving actual Nazis, let alone the OSS.

The allegations about Vatican-Nazi ties are little more than tired bits of anti-Catholic propaganda. They are all the more ironic as Hitler received his lowest percentage of votes from Catholic areas of Germany.

The Vatican Bank has had its share of shady dealings, but that hardly makes them pro-Nazi.

67 posted on 03/25/2002 11:22:14 AM PST by Seydlitz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Romulus

Jewish Holocaust Survivor Remembers How "Catholic Underground" Fought Nazis : LINK: http://www.expage.com/page/assisi

68 posted on 03/25/2002 11:24:18 AM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Skooz
The monumental ignorance of that statement is breathtaking.
The utter lack of historical knowledge in that statement is astonishing.

I posted historical facts, you posted kindergarten taunts.

69 posted on 03/25/2002 11:25:37 AM PST by ibme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
I have a copy; thanks.
70 posted on 03/25/2002 11:34:46 AM PST by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: ibme
"They where in the same bed together while the Jews where being murdered."

Indeed. The bed was called "Europe."

71 posted on 03/25/2002 11:37:52 AM PST by cicero's_son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Romulus
Romulus....

The information available concerning the Vatican and WW2 is astronomical. One has to use his own judgement as to whom is reputable and whom is not. If the only safisfaction would be a written statement by the Pope, then this will never be forthcoming.

72 posted on 03/25/2002 11:38:47 AM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Seydlitz ; Romulus
There are actually voluminous records of Catholic opposition to the Nazis and the hiding of fleeing Jews in Catholic convents and monasteries by specific request in writing by the Pope. Speaking of which, Charles de Gaulle, Col. "Wild Bill" Donovan, and Fr. Kolbe were not exactly Lutherans or Unitarians either. That the slander and defamation continue is a sign of some other agenda obviously. You can't argue with irrational hatred.

The Defamation of Pope Pius XII

Jewish Holocaust Survivor Remembers How "Catholic Underground" Fought Nazis

73 posted on 03/25/2002 11:39:51 AM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Seydlitz
Seydlitz...

Surely you cannot have read the mountains of information available. If you look you will even find the National Archives listed, hardly a anti-catholic organization.

74 posted on 03/25/2002 11:42:54 AM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: ibme
They where in the same bed together while the Jews where being murdered.

Like Chamberlain and the British, right? Anyone who attempts to get his rights from a tyrant is somehow implicated in the tyrant's crimes?

Try telling the thousands of priests murdered at Dachau and throughout Poland that they were in the same bed as the Nazis. Try telling it to the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were aided by the Catholic Church, when no one else wanted to lift a finger. try telling it to Pinchas Lapide or Albert Einstein or Golda Meir.

...just as all other laws when properly promulgated bind the people, so concordats, inasmuch as they take on the form of civil laws are binding on the citizens of the country, and particularly the state officials; so much so that any infringement of them is equivalent to a violation of the civil laws.

Yep. So what?

75 posted on 03/25/2002 11:44:49 AM PST by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
I appreciate your civil tone, but I've asked you to cite a reputable source for your charges. "It's common knowledge" isn't good enough, I'm afraid. The burden of proof is on you.
76 posted on 03/25/2002 11:47:33 AM PST by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Romulus
The concordat was signed in 1933 BEFORE any foreign power was in battle mode to oppose the Nazis for atrocities. Prime Minister Chamberlain signed his deal with the Nazis well after this and American bankers were still backing Hitler financially after this as well. On 14 March, 1937 Pope Pius XI published
Mit Brennender Sorge which stated the moral incompatibility of and conflict between Nazi racist ideology and Christianity. It's clear from the text the Pope is aware that the Nazis have violated and broken the concordat and that the Holy See opposes their ideology. Funny the bigots always fail to mention this. [?]

A copy of this is available online at Mit Brennender Sorge : http://www.newadvent.org/docs/pi11mb.htm

77 posted on 03/25/2002 11:56:43 AM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: ibme
You have posted ZERO historical fact. You have posted some absurd assertions which are being annihilated by facts presented by others on this thread.

The utter destruction of your easily refutable absurdities is most entertaining to watch.

Face it: You're an anti-Christian zealot who would like nothing better than to have some proof that Hitler, Goering, Himmler, Heydrich et al were all born again Christians who believed they were doing God's work (in coordination with the Vatican). When the fact is they were, to a man, heavily involved in the occult and despised Christianity whether in it's Catholic or Protestant form.

78 posted on 03/25/2002 12:10:18 PM PST by Skooz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity

Check Mate

Good post and link. Amazing what ignorant spin can propagate from half-truths and distortion. Yet, when all the facts are laid bare--silence.

79 posted on 03/25/2002 12:16:34 PM PST by Skooz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: daiuy
You want some numbers? Try these. None were Christians and most were Socialist or Marxist Utopians of one form or another.

-------------------------------------------------------

The 20th Century's Bloodiest Murderers

Rummel's estimates from "Death By Government."


Ruler Country Years Total killed
Joseph Stalin Soviet Union 1929-1953 42,672,000
Mao Tse-tung China 1923-1976 37,828,000
Adolf Hitler Germany 1933-1945 20,946,000
Chiang Kai-shek China 1921-1948 10,214,000
Vladimir Lenin Soviet Union 1917-1924 4,017,000
Tojo Hideki Japan 1941-1945 3,990,000
Pol Pot Cambodia 1968-1987 2,397,000
Yahya Khan Pakistan 1971 1,500,000
Josip Tito Yugoslavia 1941-1987 1,172,000
Source: http://www.freedomsnest.com/rummel_murderers.html
80 posted on 03/25/2002 12:17:35 PM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-157 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson