Todd Epp has approvingly linked to this article which compares conservative Christians to Nazis and claims that America is on its way to a Fascist regime. He comments:
Really, really long and really, really good. You'll be nodding in agreement throughout this post--and scared for our nation after reading this. Today's must read "Must Read."
I think Todd has a good site. The most impressive thing about him is his combination of zeal for his position and his moderation in tone. That's why it is surprising that he approvingly posts this hate filled article. Todd is right about one thing: it's really long. I will post just a couple snippets. The article claims that Hitler was a dedicated Christian who sought to promote a vibrant public faith. To wit:
The prodigious work accomplished by Hitler was done in the name of positive Christianity with positive Christians at its helm. Hitler's Christianity was pro-active, committed to the needy (as long as they were Germans and were not mentally ill, communists, union leaders, "German Jews,” genetically deficient, and a host of other deviants). But, he sure knew how to put up a great show of it—and the vast majority of the German people utterly adored the man and, as the War wore on—followed him into the flames of Dresden, Berlin, Hamburg, Frankfurt, and countless other cities where mayhem, death and destruction abounded.
And America, with the hands of proto-fascist Christians like Bush and company around its collective throat, is on the verge of its own encounter with Nazism:
It is my firm conviction that this is precisely what is happening in America today. The appeal to the Christian religion in the battle “against evil” within the West is NOT an historic first! Don't be so quick to terminate this reading—let me explain. Who are those who most clearly understand the language of THE AXIS OF EVIL? Who are those who clearly grasp the "spiritual reality" behind Islamic terrorism? The current President is no fool in appealing to the most religious in leading his charge against the forces of evil that assail the current drama. The appeal to religious unity in the face of extremity is manifested in Islamic Jihad—Holy War. But, this appeal is far more sinister and powerful when placed in the hands of a "Christian President" about to inspire the faithful—far more potent is its impress. There is a righteous finality connected with it—a more sure word—an unseen and unmistaken cause behind this necessary action whose appeal is Ultimate and Conclusive. God, and God alone, is my judge—and you are "either for us or against us"—there is no compromise, there is no wavering between two opinions—LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT—OUR CAUSE IS JUST!
It would take a post of monumental length to respond to this article, and I have neither the time nor the patience for such a post (you're welcome). So let me try to be as brief as possible. The idea that a Germany steeped in Nietzsche, Rilke, Wagner and Heidegger was captured in the throes of the Christian evangelist named Hitler is stupid beyond belief. The author fails to note that Hitler was the master propagandist. The effective propagandist wraps his absurdity in the truth, and so Hitler recognized the value of Christian language for a people who still wore the window dressing of Christianity. The author repeats the libels against Pius XII, which I will leave unremarked upon except to direct you to this essay by South Dakota's own Joseph Bottum on the subject.
The essence of this article is an unalloyed bigotry towards Christians, and Catholics in particular. The idea that America is on the precipice of a fanatical Christian overthrow of its liberal democratic regime is the product of a deranged mind. I spend an inordinate amount of time in orthodox/conservative Catholic circles and know my fair share of conservative Protestants. I can say with total confidence that these are the most decent, loving, and charitable people I have ever known. The idea that just beneath the surface lies a cruel hatred ready to destroy the American republic is a product of pure ignorance or pure bigotry. I know first hand the gentleness and kindness of various priests in the Sioux Falls diocese and it is shameful to associate them and their Church with the evil of Hitler. They and their parishioners and their Protestant brethren are not perfect, but they are a force for good in our country. I point out that the leading arguments against eugenics and the manipulation of human life for our own selfish needs comes from the religious right, not the religious left. Kreig says:
Hitler's depiction of Jesus as the FIGHTER, not as the sufferer, is a distortion of the Scriptural intent of this reading; however, without knowing the full contextual nature of the Word, one could (as Hitler did) surmise a MILITANT JESUS is in view, and not a suffering Jesus.
This view of Jesus as militant has more in common with the Marxist inspired liberation theology of Central and South American than it does with orthodox Catholicism (indeed it was denounced by John Paul II) or evangelical Protestantism. I point out as a matter of fact it getting conservative Christians, especially evangelicals, politically involved in the 1970s was difficult precisely because of a religious distain for politics as being too "worldly."
Just this morning I finished James Hitchcock's two volume The Supreme Court and Religion in American Life (Vl 1 and VL 2). This fearful commingling of religion and state that so worries this Doug Krieger is, in a certain manner, deep in the tradition of the nation. Hitchcock writes:
Despite the Establishment Clause, the principle American tradition was one of alliance between religion and politics, since God, whose will was manifested through democratic processes, had anointed the nation as his agent in history. Church and state did not compete with each other, which allowed public officials to treat religion favorably and to draw inspiration from it. The chief support for this civil religion came not from political institutions but from the religious community itself, which in turn influenced politics. For most Americans of the nineteenth century, the distinction between "public" and "private" religion would have been unintelligible, since religion was assumed to influence social and political life. What was originally called "public religion" has been characterized as Protestant in tone and congregationalist in form, inculcating virtue and republican principles.
Hitchcock further notes (as does Philip Hamburger) that the separationist doctrine embraced by the Court post-WWII had powerful antecedents in anti-Catholicism of such men as former Klansman Hugo Black and Justice William O. Douglas. The motive of the article commented on here is to drive religion into the closet making it a matter of mere personal taste. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there has been nary an important social movement in American history, be it abolitionism, temperance, women's suffrage, the progressive economic justice movement of the early 20th century, and the civil rights movement of the 1950s, that was not motivated to a significant degree by Christians (mostly evangelical) who were motivated by a belief that their Christianity called them to work for greater justice in the world. I direct you to this post where I pointed out that John Kerry himself defends the importance of faith in shaping his public policy views.
The article Todd links to is filled with half-truths, downright falsehoods (the Pope is crowned?), and thinly veiled bigotry. If Todd does not agree with this article he should repudiate it. If he does agree, then I am sorry to say I have lost much respect for him and I believe he should be shamed out of legitimate political discourse.
Recent Comments