by Carl Pwccaman, Unknown News
July 27, 2004
I find many discussions about Christianity, Hitler, and the role of
religion in a nation, to be very interesting.
The buzzwords and hot topics involved threaten to prevent discussion
completely, and sometimes it seems as if we have a snowballs chance in
Hitler Heaven to communicate the real nature of our concerns, on any side.
I'll be content to just let all the autobiographers, psychologists,
sociologists, and historians second-guess the secret thoughts,
sentiments, and actual sincere beliefs in the minds of people like
Hitler (and those who committed all the war crimes against the Good
Christian Cathars, in the Albigensian Crusade, hundreds of years ago,
too)... But as a matter of theology, mysticism, and religion, there are
some other issues that need to be pointed out... And there are other
concerns, which are matters of political empowerment and strategy to
secure freedom and civil rights, and to encourage a political
environment that we can operate within with some hope.
We are, after all, engaged in a War Against American
Cruelty. We are regularly fighting against rationalizations against
war crimes and against indifference or forgetfulness about the
inexcusability of torture. We are besieged by attitudes of
mean-spiritedness combined with widespread disregard for concerns about
accountability. We are dealing with regular propaganda and
manipulation. We are battling against the acceptance of targeting the
critics of the Bush administration, liberals, foreigners, so-called
elite (lawyers and academics and Hollywood figures), as scapegoats. We
are dealing with a rampant disconnect and sometimes radical distortion
of reality, with continual and increasingly severe and disturbing
outbursts of hysteria and psychosis on the right.
Because the issue goes round and round about who is a “real Christian”
-- I just need to note that if someone feels it is important that people
are encouraged to follow a understanding of Jesus Christ, if someone
holds up Jesus Christ as a model, if someone calls themselves a
Christian or advocates and identifies with churches that have for
centuries gone by the name of "Christian"... then whether that person is
following someone else's understanding of "real Christianity" or not,
that person is relying on Christians, and publicly encouraging
Christians in their religiosity and religious sentiment, while perhaps
steering them to certain interpretations of Christianity against other,
and yes perhaps using the popularity of Jesus Christ, to support their
interests.
If the bulk of Christians in a given area that has a long history of
Christianity, are 'sold' on this figure's interpretation of Jesus
Christ, then you have to admit, that though you disagree with the
interpretation of Christianity, it is still true that Christianity is
involved. And if when Christianity is so involved, Christianity does
not adequately criticize or prevent the support of the various
attitudes, interpretations, and practices that are objectionable, that
does reflect upon Christians or Christianity. It might be worth noting
that many people condemn Christianity without condemning Jesus Christ.
Also, many people refer to Christianity or publicly encourage and
support Christians in their religion, for various purposes, while
perhaps having reservations about Jesus Christ. Christians can choose
to assent to association with various authoritarians and fascists, or
they can dis-associate themselves from them by vocally opposing them.
But either way, past history does associate Christians with the various
tyrants, mobs, and authoritarians who they have supported or allied
themselves.
In terms of theology:
Hitler and those who accommodated him or assisted him, are similar to
those who supported the Crusade against the Albigensians/Cathars, just
as they are similar to those who supported various witch hunts, in that
Jesus Christ's name was dragged through the mud as people were harassed,
tortured, and killed, and people went along with it. The Christian
theology of such people reinforces their authoritarianism and
abusiveness, and can be distinguished from other sorts of Christian
theologies. Unfortunately for Christians, their Bible is full of claims
to authority, full of support for authoritarianism, and full of
tolerance of, or even divine commands, to commit genocide or inflict
awful punishment on unbelievers. Just look at the Book of Joshua, or
some of Jesus' parables where people are slaughtered as retribution, or
where Jesus speaks of hellish torment for those who disagree with him.
That is an issue for apologetics that I am not going to waste my time
over. It is enough to bring up the problem.
In terms of mysticism:
Much can be found in Jesus and Paul's words to support the notions of
brotherly love, the seeking of union with God and to fellow humans in
the highest kind of Love. Also, mystical viewpoints allow one to point
out the deceptive nature of certain spiritual phenomenon, demons, etc.,
that seduce the wealthy (Mammon) and who are patrons of violence,
tyranny, authoritarianism, and world rulers of all kinds. These world
rulers (and/or the spiritual forces that support them and the domination
systems of the world) are the Archons or Rulers of this
World/Cosmos/Universe identified as Satanic by Paul.
These evil and ignorant Archons are also soundly condemned by Gnostics
of all sorts, Christian and non-Christian (for more on this see Walter
Wink's Cracking
the Gnostic Code: The Powers in Gnosticism). The Gnostics described
as ignorant or evil, the Pagan deities of the Planets as well as the
rule of Fate or of Zeus, and also the craftsman who shaped the world and
who is identified or reminiscent of the god of the Hebrew Scriptures.
All of them were associated with tyranny, the principle of control, and
the fettering of the mind and soul. Later Gnostics such as the
Cathars/Albigensians, also identified the corrupt, violent, and worldly
leaders of the Christian Church (Catholic and Orthodox) as false leaders
under the patronage of Satan. Any authoritarian leaders and henchmen of
Empire or of religious authority, fell under the scathing criticism of
Archons by the Gnostics.
There is something inherently worldly an unspiritual about all forms of
authoritarianism, political scapegoating, and abuse of power... worldly
in the pejorative sense of all that is dumb, ignorant, and
strife-causing in the world... worldly in the pejorative sense of all
that is selfish, mob-oriented, and blinded by social pressures and
upbringing... worldly in the sense that instincts of reaction, the
limits and distortions of complexes and processes in human brains, and
sociological distortions of cultures of the world, distort the clarity
of our vision and the ability to have empathy and compassion for others.
I.e., as Gnostics pointed out clearly on all sides (whether about Pagan,
Hebrew, or Christian rulers/religious authorities, and the psychological
or metaphysical forces behind them), as Paul pointed out in more general
spiritual terms of the ruler of this age and the powers dominating this
world, and as was indicated by some words of Jesus in the Gospels to his
disciples... Power corrupts not just secular rulers, but power
corrupts religion, too.
In terms of religion:
It is clear that issues of authority and power can lead to huge and
wide-ranging social and spiritual problems, and that emphasizing faith
in the right beliefs or doctrines, only seems to compound these
problems. To believe in Jesus because he is God, to fear God or
Jesus (or the Devil) because he can destroy your soul and body in
Hell, to be a Christian because one believes a so-called Good God
has authority and power to declare that all humans by default deserve
Hell, and that Christians don't deserve better but simply are forgiven,
sets the stage for further grave and perverse catastrophe and societal
abuses of all kinds.
This sort of potential flowered in all the abuses of Christianity
throughout history, and is demonstrated in the fact that 'ordinary
Christians' not only supported Hitler but did his dirty-work. I would
point out that the way certain American soldiers (and Generals like
William Boykin) dehumanize the wartime enemy with reference to certain
kinds of religious ideology, contributed to the torture of prisoners at
Abu Ghraib. Most obviously it would relate directly to any case where
prisoners were ordered to denounce Islam in some way, and a number of
such cases have been reported.
Emphasizing correct belief for fear of being sentenced by God to
infinite eternal torment as punishment in Hell, and then
calling that deity a good god, further bastardizes one's conceptions
of self, others, and fairness. It erodes one's soul's/psyche's defenses
against authoritarian excesses, and lays the groundwork for totalitarian
systems and the punishment of 'thought crimes'. (A note, 'soul'
is one of several English translations of the Greek word psyche, which
is used in the New Testament, the root of psychology, related to
character and personality, life, soul, etc)
There are Progressive Christians like Marcus Borg, who emphasize
anti-authoritarian passages of scripture, and who advocate principles of
fairness and social critique that are found in the Bible. They are also
emphasizing other interpretations of faith that come from the ancient
language of the Bible and early spiritual writings that have been
de-emphasized. They argue that reducing faith to mean mere assent to
doctrine is a distortion, is inaccurate, and sometimes an incorrect
interpretation, and is in any case far too narrow an interpretation of
the actual Bible's wording in the ancient languages. Though this sort
of thing is a corrective, there are still the deep-seated religious
issues of all the centuries of other emphases and interpretation, and
the fact that there are passages in the Bible and ideas of influential
Christian figures that go the other way and blatantly excuse, encourage,
or command abuse of power or war crimes, or are easily used to reinforce
authoritarianism, obsession with obedience, and intense pressure to make
sure others have the correct doctrine.
This is also a serious religious issue in Islam and Judaism, of course,
but that does not make it a non-issue for Christians. Doing what is
right because of one's character, because doing what is good is a good
in itself, because one has compassion, is very different, in religious
and in philosophical/ethical terms, than merely asserting authority or
the need to believe by faith, or simply asserting God's power and
authority to command.
To attempt to back up one's belief only by claims of authority, or by
the power to punish, or by a need for faith, is neither ethical nor good
nor reasonable.
Any bully, fool, or madman can claim the same, and can do little
without such supports.
And so supporting one's view in these ways has nothing to do with either
ethics, goodness, or reason. Appeals to authority as proof for a
position's truth, are logically faulty, are false, as they are proof of
nothing. There is nothing reasonable about it. Certainly nothing fair
about it.
To threaten punishment for disbelief, especially on the basis of such
falsehoods, is perverse.
Of course this has everything to do with the totalitarian mindset,
authoritarianism, and abuse of power by religious or political
authorities, and their manipulation of the public.
In terms of political empowerment:
We simply cannot afford to let people off the hook when they claim moral
or ethical authority on political, economic, or foreign policy matters,
on the grounds of anything other than the principles of fairness, the
ideal of reasonable co-existence between people who have differing
views, the concepts of individual, civil, and human rights, the
constitutional wisdom of separation and balance of powers, checks
against potential abuse or dangerous conglomerations of power, oversight
and accountability, and other such principled and reasonable
foundations. We certainly must staunchly oppose any who claim to be
voices of moral guidance, who promote a position that will harm or
restrict others, when their basis in general for morality is
unreasonable, sectarian, or simply based on claims to authority, the
power of God to punish, or some presumed need to believe correctly.
We need to reveal them as not having enough respect of ethics or
enough of a clue as to how to go about a reasonable consideration of
what is good for society, and therefore argue that they are not
qualified for any role as moral adviser.
We must seize the role of moral adviser, and oppose ignorance
with reason, counteract immoral authoritarianism with moral reasonable
co-existence in a pluralistic society, fight the bullying mindset with
principled self-defense, and sidestep appeals to faith with reminders of
the proof of abuses of religion. We must challenge any hint of
the idea that religionists have a de facto role as prestiged
moral guides or as necessary advisers on what is good for anyone else,
and we must assert the competence of principled political philosophy
and ethics, as reasonable, good, and necessary, in order to prevent
the barbaric abuses of power in the past, whether religious or secular.
The issue is the de facto presumption of moral authority by
religionists, and the resolution of the problem is the use of reason,
ethics, and sound political principle, in the course of public
debate, whether people are religious or not. If religious people are
not willing to argue from reason, ethics, and sound political
principle/philosophy, then they are no better than any unreasonable,
unethical, and unsound political ideologue or demagogue. If they are
willing to be reasonable, ethical, and have sound political principles,
then they are as welcome as anyone else with those traits. But if we
know that people have beliefs that are at their base authoritarian, or
only justified by claims to power or threats of punishment, then we are
within our rights to keep that in mind and be on the lookout for traces
of contradiction, compromise, distortion, or incoherence in their words
and actions. Empowerment is about using what we have, as best we can,
and creating more space in which to have political impact.
In terms of strategy to secure freedom and civil rights:
We cannot count upon the nature of the dialog being reasonable, fair,
or healthy, and neither can we count upon any particular degree of
actual empowerment. And so we must consider the effect of buzzwords,
hot-button issues, and propaganda by our opponents, and we must also be
wary of distractions from the most important facts, issues, and
potential problems. Voting out a President who threatens freedom and
civil rights, in favor of someone who can defeat him and would not be as
threatening to our freedom and civil right, or who would not escalate
the erosion of freedoms and rights as quickly, would be the responsible
thing to do.
Given the opportunity, appearance, or smallest hint of this being
possible, we are responsible to do what we can within the confines of
the situation. But freedom and civil rights benefit greatly by a
culture that values and supports them, and they are undermined just as
greatly by a culture that could care less or is hostile to concerns of
freedom and civil rights. And so regardless of who is president, we
need to concern ourselves with education about the issues and political
philosophy... education about the reasonable and ethical way to solve
political and social problems. We need to educate ourselves and others,
and we need to help to educate society at large.
But then there is the issue of norms and appropriateness. Being
inappropriate or outside the norm, especially when no one is harmed, can
be seen as the substance of freedom in action. But being merely
unreasonable, bullying, or offensive for its own sake, while perhaps the
substance of freedom in action, tends to alienate potential allies and
is not based on the ideal of reasonable interaction with others. If we
desire mutual respect despite disagreements, and also value self-defense
as reasonable when there is physical danger or harassment, then acting
consistently with this is not only the principled thing to do, but it is
also good strategy for gaining allies and maintaining the rights we
have. It is also good for advancing the cause of securing more
political space and freedom. Certain kinds of inappropriateness and
activity outside the norm can be seen as the key to the passive
resistance tactic of the civil rights movement. After all, it was
inappropriate and against the norm for a black woman to sit at the front
of the bus.
Public space is supposed to be public, and so it is not owned by
sectarians. If they talk, so can we. If they hand out tracts, so can
we. If they bully or harass, we can try to stop the bullying or
harassment by whatever means are necessary and appropriate according to
sound political principle. Blocking certain radical judges, opposing
certain initiatives in the House or Senate, and exposing dangerous
Executive Orders, are important strategic concerns. Fighting for an
honest vote in November, is also important. Fighting religiously biased
laws at the local level, in the school boards, at the State level, and
monitoring the activity of faith based services, and generally defending
fairness and principle, against attack by the religious right, is
important whenever the issues come up.
In terms of encouraging a political environment that we can operate
within with some hope:
We need to combat scapegoating whenever we see hints of it, and we need
to avoid scapegoating, ourselves. We need to point out verifiable
problems, facts, and issues, as much as possible, with the force of
conviction. We need to speak reason with the force of reasonableness.
We need to be aware of every reactionary tendency in our society and
within ourselves, and gain more insight and composure in the face of them.
We need to stress the importance of this, and we need to publicly
identify the detrimental role of certain types of religious pressures in
politics, all while encouraging the morality of ethics and political
principle in a society that has people of different faiths, as well as
unbelievers, who all are equal citizens under law.
The fact is, theocratic religionists, Reconstructionist and Dominion or
Kingdom Now Christians, can be fairly called authoritarians who are
potentially destructive to our free society, potentially supporters of
tyranny. Some call them theocratic fascists. Some of them are in fact
theocratic Fascists. Fascism can be described as an authoritarian and
totalitarian ideology that makes fervent demagogic appeals to nation,
ethnicity, or religion, as it targets its enemies as scapegoats, and
champions heroism and 'great men' and reaction.
The belief that thoughts can be sins worthy of eternal punishment
(eternal punishment therefore being infinite punishment for having the
wrong views), by an authority in the clouds, on the basis of
authoritative statements in the writing of the inspired religious
authorities, can indeed be connected to authoritarianism,
can indeed be connected to the belief that thoughts can be crimes, or
that some religious or political views are unprotected, that we do not
have the right to hold certain views, politically. The belief in the
goodness and holiness of eternal (an hence infinite) punishment can in
fact be connected to justifications of torture by soldiers or
inquisitors. The belief that others can be treated rudely because they
go against the authority of God, can in fact be connected to the
official endorsement of harassment of unbelievers or those who do not
have the right political view.
The fact is, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have been considered to
some degree parts of the Reconstructionist, Dominion, or Kingdom Now
movements. The fact is, these figures, and these movements, have
exerted influence upon the Christian Coalition... although the more
radical people in these movements criticize the Christian Coalition as
too ecumenical and too moderate, or disagree on whether they can trust
Republicans to do their bidding.
The fact is, George W. Bush appeals to these people for support, and
encourages them.
It seems to me that the issue does not rest on what Bush wants, or what
can he realistically accomplish (as if reading his mind or assessing
practical potentials on his part was crucial.) The issue is what
political climate Bush encourages, who supports him, and how is the
United States changing.
Again, what do we want our country to be like? We have to remind
people that they are making choices that undermine our culture of
freedom and reasonable dialog, and that we need to change our perverse
culture. We need to expose empty manipulations and distortions of
propaganda for what they are, we need to oppose scapegoating and appeal
to the reasonableness in people that condemns scapegoating. And we need
to try to help shift people back to a more reasonable assessment of
reality. We cannot do that without challenging histrionic, reckless,
and authoritarian religionists. The sort of political culture that is
the best defense against Fascism, is undermined by those religionists,
and by the political ideologues and demagogues who appeal to them as
allies or for support.
© 2004, by the author.
What do you think?
|
|
If religious people are not willing to argue from reason, ethics, and sound political principle/philosophy, then they are no better than any unreasonable, unethical, and unsound political ideologue or demagogue.
|
|
|
On April 20, 1939, Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo, the papal nuncio in Berlin, celebrated Hitler's birthday. The celebrations became a tradition. Each April 20, Cardinal Bertram of Berlin sent "warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany" with "fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars."
|
|
Unfortunately for Christians, their Bible is full of claims to authority, full of support for authoritarianism, and full of tolerance of, or even divine commands, to commit genocide or inflict awful punishment on unbelievers.
|
|
|
Hitler departs a church in Wilhelmshaven after attending morning worship services.
|
Again, what do we want our country to be like?
We have to remind people that they are making choices that undermine our culture of freedom and reasonable dialog, and that we need to change our perverse culture.
We need to expose empty manipulations and distortions of propaganda for what they are, we need to oppose scapegoating and appeal to the reasonableness in people that condemns scapegoating.
And we need to try to help shift people back to a more reasonable assessment of reality.
|
|
|
|
