Why Faith Fails The Christian Delusion

by John W. Loftus

groups and Christian theologians (e.g., Friedrich Schleiermacher).41

  In short, if we use the same logic used by many Christian theologians who

  radically reinterpret the Hebrew Bible for Christian practice, we could also argue

  that Positive Christianity does not represent so much an antiChristian movement,

  as it does a reinterpretation of Christianity, a phenomenon which is a standard

  part of Christian history. That is why we have some 25,000 Christian groups

  today, some of which believe radically opposite things. To say that Marcionites,

  Lutherans, or Positive Christians are not really Christians is to make a

  theological judgment more than a historical judgment.

  WHAT'S So NEGATIVE ABOUT POSITIVE CHRISTIANITY?

  Not only does D'Souza exhibit a woeful misunderstanding of Positive

  Christianity, but the main objections he launches against it are extremely

  superficial. For D'Souza, Positive Christianity cannot count as Christianity

  because it "was obviously a radical departure from traditional Christian

  understanding, and was condemned as such by Pope Pius XI at the time." 42 The

  latter case alone shows D'Souza's theological prejudices because he assumes that

  whatever Pope Pius condemns must represent a false Christianity. And of course,

  the claim that an Aryan Christ is a radical departure from traditional Christian

  understanding comes as news to anyone who has ever studied the long history of

  Christian art, where Christ is routinely painted as a white European. According

  to Epiphanies Monachus (eighth or ninth century), a Greek monk from

  Constantinople, Jesus "stood six feet tall, his hair was long, goulden-colored, and

  not very thick ..."43 So, how is a Nazi Aryan Christ such a radical departure?44

  D'Souza also neglects to tell his readers that before Pope Pius XI distanced

  himself from Nazism in his famous 1937 encyclical (MitBrennender Sorge /

  "With Burning Sorrow"), that same Pope had signed, "at the time," a Concordat

  with the Nazis in 1933, which even Hitler credited with helping to further his

  "struggle against international Jewry ("der Kampf gegen das

  internationale,7udentum").45 And note how D'Souza does not question whether

  Pope Pius XI has political rather than lofty humanitarian motives for his reproof

  of the Nazis in 1937. D'Souza does not question whether Pius XI meant what he

  said, as he does when Hitler says he is following God's will.

  Yet when one reads that 1937 encyclical, Pope Pius XI admits compromising

  with Nazi Germany:

  When, in 1933, We consented, Venerable Brethren, to open negotiations for

  a concordat, which the Reich Government proposed on the basis of a

  scheme of several years' standing ... We were prompted by the desire, as it

  behooved Us, to secure for Germany the freedom of the Church's beneficent

  mission and the salvation of the souls in her care, as well as by the sincere

  wish to render the German people a service essential for its peaceful

  development and prosperity. Hence, despite many and grave misgivings,

  We then decided not to withhold Our consent for We wished to spare the

  Faithful of Germany, as far as it was humanly possible, the trials and

  difficulties they would have had to face, given the circumstances, had the

  negotiations fallen through a6

  Why does that not qualify as a political move since it is meant to protect the

  interests of a distinct group (Catholics)? Why can't we say that Vatican hierarchy

  did not mean what it said in 1937 either? And were none of the Pope's advisers

  familiar with Mein Kampf, which had been published nearly a decade before

  1933?

  In fact, Diego von Bergen, the Reich's ambassador to the Holy See, reported

  that while the Pope was saying one thing, Eugenio Pacelli, the Cardinal

  Secretary to the Vatican and the man who would become Pope Pius XII,

  promised that "normal and friendly relations ... would be restored as soon as

  possible" between the Vatican and the Nazis after that encyclical.47 Indeed, by

  1939, Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo, the nuncio to Berlin, was busy opening a

  gala reception for Hitler's fiftieth birthday in Berlin.48 So much for the Catholic

  hierarchy repudiating the Nazi regime.

  Otherwise, it all depends on whether one views the mission of the Catholic

  Church as worthy of such a compromise, and that is a theological judgment. If

  Hitler believed that God wanted him to kill Jews, there is no way to verify that

  that mission was any less from God than when Pope Innocent III wanted to

  exterminate Jews or other heretics in the Middle Ages. Otherwise, D'Souza

  would have to explain why Pope Innocent III was right to say God wanted him

  to exterminate Jews or heretics in the Middle Ages, but God would not have

  wanted the same thing for Hitler in the twentieth century.

  How ANTIRELIGIOUS WAS HITLER?

  Misunderstanding the difference between Positive Christianity and the rest of

  Christianity is what has led D'Souza and others to transform any of Hitler's

  supposed antiChristian views into antireligious views. There is a logical

  problem, of course, with the claim that being antiChristian or being anti-Catholic

  means being antireligious. Religion is much broader than Christianity or

  Catholicism.

  More importantly, for part of his evidence, D'Souza appeals to Hitler's Table

  Talk, which supposedly records the Fuehrer's more private thoughts. However,

  the reliability of this source for determining Hitler's views is most questionable.

  Four major versions of Table Talk exist, here named after the main editors or

  translators and the years of publication: (1) Henry Picker (German, 1951, 1963,

  1976); (2) Francois Genoud (French translation only, 1952); (3) H. R.

  TrevorRoper (English, 1953, 1973, 2000); and (4) Werner Jochmann (German,

  1980). These records are usually organized internally by the date in which Hitler

  held a conversation.

  The problems with Table Talk have been studied carefully by Richard

  Carrier.49 From my perspective, as an academic historian, there are at least three

  problems with using this source: (1) There are no extant manuscripts from

  Hitler's own hand of this source. We have no audio tapes to verify the transcripts.

  What we have are reputed copies which often have been filtered through Martin

  Bormann, Hitler's adjutant. The fact that versions agree sufficiently to propose a

  common source does not necessarily prove that this common source was Hitler

  himself. (2) The versions are sometimes discrepant. Some passages are missing

  from the edition of TrevorRoper relative to the edition of Picker. So it is difficult

  to tell what comes from Hitler and what comes from the editors. (3) TrevorRoper

  authenticated the Hitler Diaries, despite the fact that they later proved to be

  forgeries.50 Genoud is also a questionable character who may have been

  involved in forgery. And as Carrier has shown, both the Genoud and

  TrevorRoper editions often egregiously mistranslate the original German.

  In addition, a main intermediate in all known versions of Table Talk is Hitler's

  personal secretary, Martin Bormann, who was known for his antiChristian

  views.51 So sometimes we ma
y be reading Bormann's thoughts rather than

  Hitler's.52

  We also know, from other sources, that Hitler disagreed with Bormann and

  also disagreed with his own supposed views expressed in Table Talk. For

  example, Albert Speer, who was Hitler's personal architect, said:

  Even after 1942 Hitler went on maintaining that he regarded the church as

  indispensable in political life. He would be happy he said in one of those

  teatime talks at Obersalzberg, if someday a prominent churchman turned up

  who was suited to lead one of the churches-or if possible both the Catholic

  and Protestant churches reunited.53

  Speer also reports cases where Hitler contravened antiChristian actions by his

  underlings.54

  So, if we use only the most reliable sources, D'Souza definitely has not proven

  his case. D'Souza does not cite a single instance in Mein Kampf, a source

  indisputably ascribed to Hitler, where the latter says his motives are atheistic.

  Yet we can find a number of places in Mein Kampfwhere Hitler, no less than

  Martin Luther, claims to be following the will of God.

  But even if we were to regard Table Talk as a reliable source, Hitler's

  antireligionism is not as clear as D'Souza claims because D'Souza conflates

  antiChristianity with atheism. Of the quotes D'Souza provides, the one that

  would best makes his case is: "through the peasantry we shall be able to destroy

  Christianity."" But D'Souza does not provide a page number to Hitler's Table

  Talk, and his corresponding footnote just refers to "Hitler's Table Talk (New

  York: Enigma Books, 2000)," which is an edition associated with Hugh

  TrevorRoper.56 This is, at best, very sloppy documentation, and it raises the

  question of whether D'Souza is even reading Table Talk firsthand.

  Moreover, D'Souza does not reveal the full sentence, which is actually found

  in Hitler Speaks, a historically discredited book authored by Hermann

  Rauschning: "But it is through the peasantry that we shall be really able to

  destroy Christianity because there is in them a true religion rooted in nature and

  blood." 57 Thus, in this huller version, Hitler's alleged goal is a better religion

  ("true religion"), not no religion.

  If D'Souza had read the various versions of Table Talk carefully, he would

  also find a lot that contradicts his claim that Hitler was antireligious. For

  example, in a conversation reported for October 14, 1941 (TrevorRoper edition),

  Hitler remarks:

  An educated man retains the sense of the mysteries of nature and bows

  before the unknowable. An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the

  risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal) ...

  58

  Hitler adds:

  One may ask whether the disappearance of Christianity would entail the

  disappearance of belief in God. That's not to be desired. The notion of

  divinity gives most men the opportunity to concretise the feeling they have

  of supernatural realities. Why should we destroy this wonderful power they

  have of incarnating the feeling for the divine that is within them?59

  Thus, even here Hitler makes a difference between not believing in Christianity

  and not believing in God. In fact, in the original German of the Table Talk, Hitler

  expresses his expectation of eternal life in heaven and his actual disdain for

  those who mock the providence of God, declaring instead that he thinks he may

  have been chosen by God, and that it is our belief in a Creator that separates us

  from the animals 60

  And it is in Table Talk that Hitler clearly distinguishes the original teachings

  of Christ from the corrupt form that became known as "Christianity." He said (on

  October 21, 1941) that:

  Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism the

  destroyer. Nevertheless, the Galilean, who later was called the Christ,

  intended something quite different. He must be regarded as a popular leader

  who took up His position againstJewry.61

  In any case, Hitler's actions against any churches are not necessarily more

  antiChristian or antireligious than Protestant destruction of Catholic churches, or

  Catholic destruction of Protestant shrines. For instance, King Henry VI11 (1491-

  1547), who initiated the English Reformation, did not see himself as

  antiChristian or antireligious when he demolished Catholic monasteries.

  Christian kings often killed clerics and persecuted churches that disagreed with

  them.62 What we are seeing in Nazism is a sectarian war or an intrareligious

  war, which should not be confused with anti religionism63

  How DARWINIST WAS NAZISM?

  Despite all the evidence that Nazism is a continuation of Christian antiJudaism,

  D'Souza assures us that Darwinism is really behind Nazism. For his evidence,

  D'Souza refers us to the work of Richard Weikart, as follows:

  If Nazism represented the culmination of anything, it was that of the

  nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century ideology of social

  Darwinism. As historian Richard Weikart documents, both Hitler and

  Himmler were admirers of Darwin and often spoke of their role as enacting

  a "law of nature" that guaranteed "the elimination of the unfit." Weikart...

  concludes that while Darwinism is not a "sufficient" intellectual explanation

  for Nazism, it is a "necessary" one. Without Darwinism there might not

  have been Nazism.64

  As in the previous cases, D'Souza does not seem to have the expertise to

  evaluate the claims of Weikart. I have already offered a number of lengthy

  critiques of Weikart, but here I will summarize some of the problems with using

  Weikart's book.65

  First, the very notion that Darwinism was "necessary" for Nazism is disproven

  by Luther's 1543 plan for the Jews. By 1543 one could achieve a program that

  even Luther scholars admit resembles Nazism, and there was no Darwin then.

  Weikart forgets Luther altogether, and he hardly mentions a long history of

  Christian anti Judaism which certainly would be more important than

  Darwinism. Most Germans were not as familiar with Darwin's books as they

  were with the Bible or with anti-Jewish traditions of German figures, such as

  Luther.

  D'Souza never provides any direct quotation to show that Hitler was an

  admirer of Darwin. In fact, D'Souza seems to be unaware of Weikart's exact

  views on Hitler's references to Darwin. Weikart has been quoted as saying:

  It's true that Hitler hardly ever mentioned Darwin by name (the only direct

  mention of Darwin I have been able to find is an account by a colleague

  Wagener).66

  Yet even "hardly ever" is deceptive because Weikart admits that the only direct

  reference to Darwin by Hitler does not come from Hitler at all. Hitler, however,

  mentions Luther, and praises him in Mein Kampf. That alone tells us that, for

  Hitler, Luther was important enough to mention a few times, but Darwin never

  was.

  Moreover, D'Souza and Weikart also ignore evidence that Darwinism was

  specifically banned in Nazi Germany, at least in 1935. Evidence derives from<
br />
  this directive in a list of banned books in Nazi Germany compiled by an exhibit

  of the University of Arizona library: "Writings of a philosophical and social

  nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive

  Darwinism and Monism (H5ckel)."67

  WEIKART'S DARWINISM

  A principal problem with Weikart's thesis is that he begins with this very

  restrictive definition of "Darwinism":

  When I use the term Darwinism in this study, I mean the theory of

  evolution through natural selection as advanced by Darwin in The Origin of

  Species.68

  It is puzzling why Weikart restricted his definition of Darwinism just to what is

  found in On the Origin of Species (1859), especially as that book says really

  nothing about human evolution or racial struggle. Consequently, Weikart has to

  keep redefining "Darwinism" to include other works of Darwin and whatever

  perversions of Darwinism he can find. This flaw is all the more important

  because he has criticized other recognized historians for not adhering to their

  definitions. Thus, in a review of a book by Annette Wittkau-Horgby, Weikart

  remarks, "Wittkau-Horgby thus does not adhere to the definition of materialism

  she starts with ..."69 To avoid constantly moving the definitional goal post for

  Darwinism, Weikart could have defined Darwinism more broadly, and said "... as

  advanced by Darwin in his works." Since, for Weikart, misinterpretations of

  Darwin still count as "Darwinism," then he actually should say: "... as advanced

  by Darwin in his books and in various interpretations of his work, whether those

  interpretations are right or wrong."

  Weikart's willingness to count misrepresentations of Darwin as Darwinism,

  however, is not consistently applied to other writings that the Nazis

  misrepresented. For example, in his review of Richard SteigmannGall's The

  Holy Reich, Weikart remarks: "Many German pantheists used religious-even

  Christian-terminology, but they often redefined it."70 So, when Nazi writers use

  pantheistic terminology, then they are pantheists, but when they use Christian

  terminology, then they are not really Christians, but pantheists. Redefining

  Christian terms absolves one from being Christian, but redefining Darwin will

  still brand one a Darwinist. This logical inconsistency is tendentious and serves

  to deflect responsibility from Christianity.

  All this is important because none of Darwin's works, and especially not On

  the Origin of Species, is concerned with anti Judaism. Anti Judaism is an

  essential component of Nazism, and one that is shared, not with Darwin's books,

  but with early Christianity (e.g., John 8:44, Revelation 2:9-10). Again, even if

  Darwin had an anti-Jewish agenda, most Germans would not be as familiar with

  Darwin's books as they were with the Bible.

  RAGIALIZATION OF JEWS

  D'Souza claims that at least Medieval Jews could have converted to Christianity

  while Nazi Darwinist eugenics had racialized Jews to the point where the latter

  could not change their identity. As I have argued, this really does not make a

  difference in condemning genocide based on religion or ethnicity. But the idea

  that Jews were a racial category, not just a religious category, already had a long

  history in Christianity before Darwin.

  Consider Hitler's idea of "purity of blood" (Reinhaltung des Blutes).n This

  notion did not begin with Darwin, nor was it even discussed as such by Darwin

  in On the Origin of Species. Instead, Hitler's specific terminology corresponds

  quite closely to Catholic Spanish terminology (limpieza de sangre/"cleanliness

  or purity of blood") applied against Jews in Spain. In particular, Juan Martinez

  Siliceo, the archbishop of Toledo, proposed legislation in 1547 based very