edoggsmooth

An undereducated person writing in the Staten Island Advance seems to think so

Here's the article (from silive.com):
------------------------------
Atheist on subject of 'evil armies' should recall modern atheist Hitler

In his letter to the editor of June 24, Ron Barrier criticizes Rev. Fred Reinglas for trying to raise up an "army of God." It is certainly true that religious fundamentalists have many times acted as forces to promote evil in the world. But the combined evil resulting from the Crusades, the Inquisitions, and every terrorist act by Islamic fundamentalists did not match the "suffering, opression, mayhem, and murder" authored by the famous atheist Adolf Hitler. And Hitler himself was outdone by atheist icons Stalin and Mao. Given 20th century history, one would think that modern atheists would try not to address the subject of evil armies.

Mr. Barrier implies that examination of the misdeeds of people who performed evil in God's name should lead us to atheism. I appreciate his perspective and I respect the passion that he takes to his line of thinking. I look forward to reading more of his letters. But Mr. Barrier's line of argument here and elsewhere has a couple of fundamental flaws.

First of all, Mr. Barrier seems so set in his way of thinking that he cannot admit, at least in his letters, that faith is the source for many, many good deeds. A deep, sincere commitment to God is the reason that many Christians, including Rev. Reinglas, work to help the needy members of society. This is consistent with Christian, Jewish, and Muslim teaching that God wants us to work for a peaceful world in which the needy are cared for. I am willing to grant Mr. Barrier the benefit of the doubt that he does not wish to bring back the glory days of Stalin's Soviet Union. He would gain credibility if he could admit that Fred Reinglas, like most Christians, strongly opposes "suffering, oppression, murder, and mayhem."

The second problem with Mr. Barrier's approach has to do with a fundamental difference between his faith and mine. As a Christian, the most important thing to me is not the details of a belief system, but a relationship with God. Just as a relationship between good friends or loving family members cannot be analyzed solely through some logical system, so my Christian faith cannot be reduced to logic. My belief system may have logical flaws and inconsistencies, and certainly many gross evils have been performed by individuals and groups acting in the name of my God. But these things do not deter me, because the basis of my faith is the relationship, not the reasoning.

While Mr. Barrier may find flaws in my logic, his atheism will never be able to offer more than flawed logic itself. But at the center of my faith, my God promises to create a loving relationship with anyone who truly, honestly seeks [to be] one with Him. JOHN W. HERBST (via e-mail) New Brighton
----------------------------------

Anyone have any ideas about a rebutal? I know Hitler was a Catholic, but what about Mao and Stalin?

Goes to show how dumb some people are.

-ed

Thor Q. Mada

I don't know about Hitler himself, but Nazi Germany was very cosy with the vatican, and the catholic church encouraged many young people all through Europe to join the German army in their struggle against Bolshevism. Also Germany was and is today still a largely xian nation (unfortunately). Making Hitler an example for how bad atheists are is an urban legend.
Anyway since there is no atheist organization, atheists at large cannot be judged on the acts individuals.
This is in contrast with organized religion, where crimes against mankind were not only condoled by the organization, but commited by those same organizations.
In other words, with religion, the "good guys" are the execption, and not the rule of the organization. The all pervading rule of the organization is self protection and perpetuation.

GaryP

Here's a link about Hitler striking out against the "Godless Movement" from the <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/unknown/hitler.html" target="_blank">II library</a>

Of course, Nazi soldier's belt buckles had the German equivalent of "God is with Us" written on them.

And I know he gave at least a couple of speeches in which he said that he knew he was doing god's will.

I'm not sure about Mao and Stalin. Communism was officially atheistic but I've always thought it had a lot to do with the fact that the Russian church claimed the Czar was directly placed in power by divine design.

DougI

Let's not forget the lovely pictures:
<a href="http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm</a>

GaryP

Thanks for the great site. I haven't seen it before.

Vorkosigan

Hitler was obviously a theist of some kind. It is difficult to reconstruct his exact beliefs -- he told people whatever they wanted to hear -- but clearly he believed in some higher power. He apparently venerated Jesus but laughed at Christianity. He instituted prayer in the schools, but persecuted the churches in his later years. You figure out what he believed.

PJPSYCO

Stalin said he was an atheist, but he also seems to beleive in religous icons. I'd say talk to some russian(my Rusian language prof said that he tried to prove that Jesus was actually born in his home state - she is from russia, and was a member of the communist party there, notably being a communications officer during the cold war - why she was trained to speak different languages). Get some of the press and such, from his time as leader, he was more crazy than anything.
I don't know much about mao. He was also an atheist though from what I've heard.
Hitler, I do beleive is Lutheran(state church of Germany), he was just cossy with the catholic church since they shared his fassist values.
---onto possible argument---
The armies idea is this guys biggest flaw. Not only was Hilter a christian, but his army as well. A portion of Stalins armies were Cristian(stalin allowed the reinstatement of the Orthodox Church during his time), and I susspect that Mao had Hindu in his(from were he is, it is unlikely that he would find only atheists). The problem is though when you make an army of people who hold your beleifs to do damage, they tend to do damage.

Another thing to note is that people have relationships with his 'god' and it tells them to kill people(ie the death threats to Mr. Newdow for example), I've gotten two myself(yes, I went to a high school that had people from a local christian beating camp - violence does tend to beget violence almost consistantly with the way it was presented). I've seen that most violent people tend to use it as a control mechanism, which is how violence was shown to them, they learned the lesson - just the wrong one. The real question that should be asked is, "is this army of God, a violent or nonviolent army?" If they are going to act civil, then let them be. If they plan on commiting acts of violence(which will probably happen, noting that most people who funtamentaly relgious do it for the power), and as noted if any of them were brought up with violence as a resolve mechanism, people will get hurt.

punta

...I susspect that Mao had Hindu in his(from were he is, it is unlikely that he would find only atheists)...

I believe you meant to say Buddhist rather than Hindu.

punta

Originally posted by GaryP:
...Of course, Nazi soldier's belt buckles had the German equivalent of "God is with Us" written on them...








these are taken from <a href="http://www.skalman.nu/third-reich/militaria-belt-police.htm" target="_blank">this site</a>

there are more examples there.

[edited to change image]

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: punta ]</p>

capsaicin67

<a href="http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm</a>

Interesting and ironic. I guess we've established the intent and beliefs of the Founders of Nazism. But the xian apologists of course judge this topic entirely the opposite as they judge the current Pledge debate. There, they focus on the speeches, rhetoric, limitations of scientific knowledge of the era, etc, as evidence FOR their position. Despite the subsequent evidence that suggest the intentions for the Constitution are more sophisticated or at least different from that. But with Hitler who invoked religion for exactly the same [probably] reasons of connecting with and mobilizing the masses with symbolism and identifying with, and justifying via, a higher, supernatural power-----they choose to focus on the unfavorable/negative outcome and suggest his intention wasnaturally atheistic! Am I missing anything or is that how it looks to anyone else?

{fix tag}

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>