The Wide Awakes » Are You Sure You’re a Liberal?

7/28/2006

It is my firm belief that if people really knew what Conservatives stood for and what Liberals stood for, Liberalism as we know it would largely disappear from the American scene.

The first two links above are apolitical in nature, and in my opinion give a “fair and balanced” description of each political view. The third link is an interesting article regarding the moral choices sometimes forced upon the Left. What is most interesting is that between these three links, they form a picture of Liberalism that is neither rational nor flattering.

To begin with, I found myself agreeing more with the definition found above (from dmoz.org, an open-source search engine) on Conservatism than with the dictionary definition. The dictionary presents an overly simplistic view of Conservatism (and to be fair, also of Liberalism). Essentially, Conservatism is defined as “an orientation which holds that Man being fallible, tradition is an important transmitter of wisdom, and that maintenance of the established order with moderate reform is preferable to utopian idealism and revolutionary change.” As a Christian, I know that man is fallible, and agree totally with this concept. That’s part of what draws me to Conservatism.

However, for me, it’s more than that. I’m literally repelled by Liberalism. Why? In my view, it is not simply un-American, it is anti-American. The whole concept of our government is based on the rights of the people, these rights being God-given. They are not bestowed upon us by a benificent government, and said government is supposed to be of, by, and for the people. Liberals want to change that. “New Liberalism” calls for more government involvement in protecting personal liberty and social justice (we saw this just recently when the Supreme Court struck down the Texas sodomy law), but at the expense of economic liberty. In our capitalistic society where people are free to be as educated, prosperous, and involved as they want to be, this is a cardinal sin.

Consider that to be a Liberal, you actually align yourself:

With abortionists, under the guise of protecting a woman’s “rights” (how about the “right” not to get pregnant in the first place?)
Against Martin Luther King, who rather than supporting Affirmative Action, desired to be judged “not by the color of [his] skin, but by the content of [his] character”
With Larry Flynt, pornographer, under the guise of “Free Speech”
Against John F. Kennedy, Liberal Icon, who advocated reduced taxes
With Adolf Hitler, who as Liberals would like to do, took away the guns of his citizenry

In practice, the ideology of Liberalism seems to be more about being against Conservatism than it is of actually taking a stand and sticking with it on any particular issue. Remember how incensed the Left was over accusations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas? Why did their tone change when Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broaddrick accused Bill Clinton of things any red-blooded American husband would pound him into sand for attempting with their wives? If they are really Pro-Choice, why are they against laws requiring abortion clinics information relating to the effects of abortion, and alternatives to abortion? By campaigning against such laws, they reveal themselves not as Pro-Choice, but as Pro-Abortion.

How any rational, clear-thinking, self-respecting individual could be a deep-down Liberal is beyond reason. Think about it!

So again I ask, are you sure you’re a Liberal?

Said tdillard @ 5:00 am | Permalink

13 Comments »

* With abortionists, under the guise of protecting a woman’s “rights” (how about the “right” not to get pregnant in the first place?)

Even when raped, or abused through incest, women should never abort a series of cells smaller than this full stop.

Better that an unwanted child has a miserable life of suffering.

* Against Martin Luther King, who rather than supporting Affirmative Action, desired to be judged “not by the color of [his] skin, but by the content of [his] character”

The above statement is merely a blatant play on wording. There are two extremes. Neither is good. But liberals, at least, attempt to justify the wrongs commited against the oppressed.

* With Larry Flynt, pornographer, under the guise of “Free Speech”

Like it or not, sex is a part of life. Otherwise human life would cease to exist. Pornography is merely a representation of sex. To oppose it, unless asexual, is to be hyprocital. To oppose its commercial availability is another matter again entirely.

* Against John F. Kennedy, Liberal Icon, who advocated reduced taxes

This statement is paradoxical. And
“nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” Without taxes, we don’t have civilisation.

* With Adolf Hitler, who as Liberals would like to do, took away the guns of his citizenry

As an Australian, one of the countries that frown on the number of gun-related crime, I can safely say that gun restrictions have decreased gun related crime by 30% since 1997. We don’t condone gun toting homicidal maniacs. Guns are designed for one purpose. Death.

Comment by Y2Krashman — 7/28/2006 @ 6:00 am

After taking the time to read both pages that you linked to at the beginning of the page I would have to disagree wit either of the two definitions being particularly unflattering to their side, both have strengths and weaknesses. Political conservatism exemplifies the power of tradition as a stabilizing influence, which can be a very good thing. Our founding fathers were equally worried about the potential of radical changes being introduced and potentially tearing the country apart and, as a result, built in natural baffles to rapid change.

They also, however, realized that change is a necessary part of government and the wisdom laid down over 200 years ago may not be as germaine as it was back then. They may also have realized that some greater good changes that would not have been tolerated at the drafting of the constitution would later be pushed forward, civil rights for the blacks, womens suffrage, and today, gay rights. I would be interested in anyone who thinks that our country had things more right when they started than at any time following and does not consider the overall evolution of our country to have been a beneficial thing and a constant striving towards a better state. We NEED ideologists to push us to become better than we are.

I must say I find your closing bulleted list almost repugnant in its attempt to vilify the liberal point of view, for a number of reasons, the first and foremost is that I would lay even odds on there being as many black sheep from the conservative cloth (how many of you proudly number Jesse Phelps as a shining star of the conservative politial camp?) as there are in the liberal cloth.

I also take issue with it on a point by point basis. The abortion point is its own issue that could have an entire debate devoted to it and I won’t even address it here, but in short I will comment that not every liberal or conservative agrees wholly with the entire body of liberal/conservative values (I for one happen to be quite for the death penalty, despite being a liberal myself). So yes, being a liberal means that you are affiliated with a group of people who have a higher tendancy to support the right to choose.

I found the MLK point almost comic given that much of your previous article was adressing the ideological drive of liberals compared to the tradition driven nature of conservatives. If there was ever a more idealistic person to be found, it would be MLK. That being said, I concur with your opinion that MLK would likely not have agreed with affirmative action, I would posit that it caused more animosity than it solved problems…so you do have a valid point in saying that MLK would have probably been against affirmative action. The problem is that many other liberals agree today that it might have been a poorly executed idea as well, so the point is largely moot.

Larry Flint? Yep, I’m in the same camp as him, no if ands or buts about it. Free speech is one of the most shining examples of what it means to be American. I am proud to live in a country where we do not have to be worried about being prosecuted for expressing veiwpoints that are counter to others, even if it is something like smut.

I am a bit confused about your JFK refrence…would you actually consider him to be a conservative, when the body of his political views are examined, rather than the one narrow point that you called out?

Your last one is probably the hardest one to give credence to, however. Hitler wanted to remove guns from the populous, liberals would like to do the same (incidentally, this is another liberal viewpoint that I disagree with), therefore, liberals are like Hitler? Post hoc, ergo propter hoc in its most flagrent use, I must say. Teddy Roosevelt had a moustache…so did Hitler…therefore Teddy was a fascist? Calling out one small piece of a persons ideology and linking that to another person who has the same ideology and then stating that they are somehow of the same mold is just hideous logic and does nothing to further your case.

As for your sexual harassment comments, I have to admit some ignorance of Clarence Thomas, but I do remember the Bill Clinton debacle. I remember being flabbergasted that such an enormous deal could be made about this, Americans from all over were truly incensed at the president for…getting a blowjob?…oh, and he lied about it, lets talk about red-blooded Americans. If someone asked YOU in front of the entire country if you cheated on your wife…would you be honest? I dont think there are many other things that an individual would be more likely to lie about…and at the end of the day, its really none of my business. He did not molest or rape her, he had sexual conduct with her…damn stupid? Yes, a matter of national security? No way. Contrast that with some of the horrendous breaches of constitutional law that our current president is doing, and most seem to not even notice or even embrace, and I am utterly at a loss for how the American people are motivated. Our President is not meant to be a policy maker, that is the job of Congress, and yet, here we have a President, rewriting laws and going around laws “for the safety of the country”. Benjamin Franklin said it best: “Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither!”

For those who think that tradition is best and do not advocate change…what would have happened if Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and the rest had felt the same back in June of 1776?

Comment by Shiloh Madsen — 7/28/2006 @ 7:39 am

Hitler did not initiate gun control in Germany. He merely extended a ban that originated in 1928 to disarm the private armies of the NAZI SA in order to stablize the new government. Eventually the NAZI SA rose to power anyway but they did it through the ballot box and not through armed revolt. In a similar move America is trying to convince Iraq and Afghanistan to disarm the private armies of various factions.

John Kennedy was first and foremost a liberal. It is entirely possible to reduce taxes and still maintain social programs. We could start by eliminating agriculture subsidies, then move on to eliminating all of the special tax codes for businesses. We could close charity loopholes that permit the very wealthy to exclude money from taxation through contribution to trusts that they then use to finance their business ventures. We could stop finacing the presciption drug program (a sop to the pharmeceutical companies) and medicare and replace them with a measured health care system designed to provide basic services. Of course that would mean spending health care dollars where we would get the most bang for out buck, meaning no extraordinary life perserving measures.

Yes Larry Flynt certainly believes in freedom of speech. I believe in it too as did the founders of our nation. Though I confess I am not sure how showing pictures of naked women in erotic poses is an example of freedom of speech. Men have always looked at pornography and I guess they always will. The problem is no so much that pornography exists but that it has been catapulted to center stage so to speak. What is wrong with keeping those kind of magazines behind the counter wrapped in brown paper?

You want to get rid of affirmative action be my guest. However, get rid of the extra points awarded simply because your parent was an alumnus too.

Yes I do believe women should have a right to control their bodies. Men have that right. My body belongs to me. Not to my husband (gasp!) and most certainly not to the state. That being said though, I also believe that women should act responsibly and that there should be a limited timeframe in which to exercise the option of abortion. It would be easier for women to act responsibly and not get pregnant in the first place if brith control was more affordable and emergency contraceptives more readily available. Unfortunately the very things that could reduce abortion is decried by the far right as being another method of abortion or even more ridiculous, as promoting promiscuity among young girls.

The backlash against laws that require abortion clinics to distribute information relating to the effects of abortion is not in reference to the material itself. (In some instances it has been about the material where the material was incorrect -increased chance of breast cancer; reduced chance of conceiving later-or speculative-you will be emotionally damaged for life; the fetus will feel pain) Rather the backlash is about the requirement that a woman receive the material and a counseling, go home and then come back for the procedure. In other words it is not designed to educate the woman but to make it more expensive and difficult to obtain an abortion. If it was really about trying to educate the woman about alterantives then the material could be sent to the woman after she called to schedule her appointment but before she came in.

Bill Clinton had a consensual relationship with Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones did not work for Clinton. Clarence Thomas was accused of sexually harassing a woman he worked with. It makes a hugh difference. I suspect if your wife told you a man at work made suggestive comments and put a pubic hair on coke can that your anger would be directed at the man. However, if your wife told you she went to the motel room of a man, after being invited and escorted their by yet another man, and that once in the motel room she was propositioned that you would be angry at your wife and wonder what in the dickens she was doing going to some man’s motel room in the first place. I’d say your anger with her would be reasonable.

Comment by Carol — 7/28/2006 @ 7:55 pm

So you describe Hitler as a liberal…because he was in favor of gun control. Based on the sum of Hitler’s career, that’s an interesting cherry-pick of his political, ah, proclivities.

Would I not be justified in describing Hitler as a Conservative because Hitler despised Communism? In fact, Hitler hated Communism so much he actually invaded the Soviet Union. Which is something that Ronald Reagan, that effete California “cowboy”, never had the cojones to try.

Your statement that the “Right” was consistent in its treatment of sexual harassment vis a vis the Thomas and Clinton scandals is so hysterically funny that I dare not try to improve upon it.

Comment by Mean Gene — 7/31/2006 @ 3:16 pm

No, because Hitler was a socialist. So that ‘despising communism” thing is disingenuous. He was not a capitalist, so that’s a real stretch of an argument you have there, Gene. When people say that ideologically Hitler is to the ‘right’, they must be referring to the right of THEM, which identifies you as an extreme leftist. He may have ‘hated’ communism, but really the differences between communism, socialism and fascism are not very vast. Fascists just pretend to allow their citizens property; but the state really has control over it, so what the hell. The citizens are still not FREE.

The Nazis of the Third Reich rarely referred to themselves as “Nazis”, preferring instead the official term, “National Socialists”. Nazi was most commonly used as a pejorative term, but its use became so widespread that, currently, some Neo-Nazis also use it to describe themselves.

Another reason Hitler’s a leftist (in my estimation)-is because he favored muslims and despised Christians and jews (just like the leftists/liberals of today) and also because of some interesting similarities and intersecting histories between the Arab brownshirts like Saddam Hussein, and real nazis. Saddam, in fact, was raised by his Uncle who was in fact a nazi. You don’t know, then, apparently, that the Grand Mufti was convicted of war crimes at the Nuremburg war trials and was exiled to Cairo…and later formed the Odessa network

which facilitated the settlement of thousands of Nazi criminals in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world. In 1962, Saddam married Sajidah Tuffah, the daughter of his uncle and mentor.

Among other things.

The Nazis managed to recruit some Moslems directly. Several Moslem SS divisions were raised: the Skanderbeg Division from Albania, the Handschar Division from Bosnia, and smaller units from throughout the Moslem world from Chechnya to Uzbekistan were incorporated into the German armed forces in one capacity or another. This was only taking the first step in Heinrich Himmler’s planned grand alliance between Nazi Germany and the Islamic world. One of his closest aides, Obergruppenführer Gottlob Berger, boasted that

“a link is created between Islam and National-Socialism on an open, honest basis. It will be directed in terms of blood and race from the North, and in the ideological-spiritual sphere from the East.”

What an image: a Nazi-Moslem alliance to conquer the world!

Sorry, Gene, National Socialism is leftist, not ‘conservative’. There is absolutely no legitimate argument that says that Hitler’s nazi regime even remotely compares to our government in the past, or today other than the idiots who say ‘Bush=Hitler”, and that’s not a fact, it’s a stupid slogan born out of idiocy.

But it’s easy to SAY and involves no thought process, just like the rest of their stupid slogans.

Comment by Cao — 7/31/2006 @ 3:25 pm

To compare Nazism (or Soviet Communism) to today’s political parties/candidates/followers is asinine. Which is why I pointed out that saying those in favor of gun control are aligning themselves with Hitler is, well, asinine. Beyond asinine, even. So before you call me disingenuous, you need to talk to Mr. Dillard.

Using Hitler (or Stalin) as a means of describing modern political attitudes is equally inane. It’s ludicrous to use works like like “socialist” or “leftist” (or “conservative”) to describe totalitarian dictators who murdered millions of people in their megalomanical attempts at world conquest. As you said, it requires no thought process. George Bush may be the worst President in this nation’s history, but as you said, it’s idiocy to compare him to Hitler.

Comment by Mean Gene — 7/31/2006 @ 7:35 pm

My blog culturalwar.blogspot.com primarily talks about Communism and Fascism. I am far from an expert, but everything I learn, I write down. Fascism is not “right”, it is “leftist”. Communism is from Marxism which describes a struggle of the classes. Fascism is a struggle of races or ethnicities (or in the case of the Middle East– religion). That is their primary difference.

Hayek makes a case in his book “The Road to Serfdom” that liberalism eventually leads to Fascism. He wrote the book in response to government policies made by Franklin Roosevelt. So there is an arguement out there that if you are a liberal– you really support Fascism. Another interesting thing I have read is that Neo-Conservatism is more closely related to Trotskyism than to Fascism or classical liberalism. I thought I would through some ideas out there about Liberalism based not on emotion, but personal research. Great blog!!

Comment by Ata — 8/1/2006 @ 12:07 am

Oh, one more thing, a lot of modern Liberlaism comes from the Marxist philosopher, Gramsci. Before Liberals attack conservatives, they should study Marx and Gramsci in more detail. It wasn’t until the radical leftists from the Communist party (which became blacklisted in the 1950’s)joined the Democratic party and instituted Marxist and Gramscian ideals that the Democratic party changed. (though there are still classic democrats in the party) Rather than helping minorities and women, they are actually “raising their consciousness of victimhood” against the ruling class, the WASP. It has nothing to do with progressivism. It is an attempt to destroy the ruling elite by using the “oppressed victims” of the ruling class to overthrow the WASP culture. Study the background of neo-liberalism from the source and you might not be so inclined to defend it. Gramsci is winning in so many ways in America. It is sad.

Comment by Ata — 8/1/2006 @ 12:45 am

Er… Just to enlighten some of the morons that post here: Hitler, WAS in fact- a Christian. Roman Catholic.

I despise those who use religion to promote themselves, their ideologies, and their hatreds.

I just found this:
Hitler
“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

Comment by Y2Krashman — 8/2/2006 @ 9:45 am

Y2Krashman,

From Abe Lincoln: “How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Five? Wrong! Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”

Hitler could claim he was a Christian all he wanted. That didn’t make him one.

Comment by TD — 8/2/2006 @ 11:47 am

Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda, noted:“The Fuhrer is deeply religous, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race… Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed.”

See Hitler’s War on Christ

Hitler was a socialist green, just like Schroeder is in Germany today. Notice how well their economy is going, lol…that socialist concept really works, doesn’t it? What is their unemployment rate again?

“The fragile, typewritten documents from the 1940s lay out the Nazi plan in grim detail,” writes Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Edward Colimore: “Take over the churches from within, using party sympathizers. Discredit, jail or kill Christian leaders. And re-indoctrinate the congregants. Give them a new faith – in Germany’s Third Reich.”

Awww, I guess this means the lefties with any sense are going to have to stop with the Bushitler mantra, ! and comparing rightwing Christians with Hitler. So sorry to disappoint, y2krashman.

Some believe that Hitler copied the Turkish Islam. He was an admirer of Islam, after all.

Prove Hitler wrong. Governments are to wield the sword to bring justice, so remember Armenian and other victims of governments that killed their own people, and thank God that the United States has worked to protect innocent people in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Sudan.

—Marvin Olasky, World magazine, October 23, 2004, p. 52

Interesting, your rhetoric is sounding scarey and much like that of Nadir Ahmed, here.

The*actual* Nazi programme for Christianity in Nazi Germany is described here by William Shirer, perhaps the foremost chronicler of the Nazi regime, after noting that the attraction of the German people to Hitler was based upon the successes which the Nazi regime had in building up the army and reviving industry and jobs, writes thus concerning the Nazi plans for Christianity,

“And even fewer paused to reflect that under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann, and Himmler, who were backed by Hitler, the Nazi regime intended eventually to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists. As Bormann, one of the men closest to Hitler, said publically in 1941, ‘National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable‘.”What the Hitler government envisioned for Germany was clearly set out in a thirty-point program for the ‘National Reich Church’ drawn up during the war by Rosenberg, an outspoken pagan, who among his other offices, held that of ‘the Fuehrer’s Delegate for the Entire Intellectual and Philosophical Education and Instruction for the National Socialist Party.’ A few of the thirty articles convey the essentials:

“1. The National Reich Church of Germany categorically claims the exclusive right and the exclusive power to control all churches within the borders of the Reich: it declares these to be the national churches of the German Reich.

“5. The National Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably….the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800.

“7. The National Church has no scribes, pastors, chaplains, or priests, but National Reich orators are to speak in them.

“13. The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany…

“14. The National Church declares that to it, and therefore to the German nation, it has been decided that the Fuehrer’s Mein Kampf is the greatest of all documents. It….not only contains the greatest but it embodies the purest and truest ethics for the present and future life of our nation.

“18. The National Church will clear away from its altars all crucifixes, Bibles, and pictures of saints.

“19. On the altars there must be nothing but Mein Kampf (to the German nation and therefore to God the most sacred book) and to the left of the altar a sword.

“30. On the day of its foundation, the Christian Cross must be removed from all churches, cathedrals, and chapels…and it must be superseded by the only unconquerable symbol, the swastika.”¹

Whatever else one might think about these goals, I doubt that there are very many people who would consider these to be part of a program implemented by “Bible believing Christians”. The Nazis, under Hitler’s direction, wanted to stop the printing and spread of the Bible, and to replace it with Mein Kampf. The Nazis wanted to remove the cross and replace it with the swastika, a symbol steeped in Eastern and Hindu mythology. The Nazis wanted to “exterminate irrevocably the foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800″, probably a reference to the conquest and “Christianisation” of the pagan Saxons by Charlemagne. Indeed, Hitler stated at one point to Bormann concerning his true attitude towards the Christian clergy in Germany,

“I’ll make these d***ed parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews.”²

Further, Hitler also stated,

“It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors — but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity…. My regret will have been that I couldn’t… behold.”³

Though Hitler was certainly no Muslim, he *did* have an affinity for the Islamic religion, which he compared favourably against the Christianity in Germany. Albert Speer, Hitler’s wartime Minister of Armaments and Munitions, records in his memoirs,

“Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century, his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. The Germanic peoples would have become heirs to that religion. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire.”Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking, ‘You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness….”⁴

(1) - W.L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, p. 240
(2) - quoted from Hitler’s ‘Table Talks’ in A. Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny
(3) - Hitler quoted on 27 February 1942, in H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941-1944, p.278

(4) - A. Speer, Inside the Third Reich, pp. 142-143

Comment by Cao — 8/2/2006 @ 12:49 pm

No offence guys, but these posts have ABSOLUTELY NO VALIDITY or FOUNDATION in REALITY. NONE. Whatsoever.

How Christianity was the catalyst of the Holocaust:

Hitler’s anti-Semitism grew out of his Christian education. Austria and Germany were majorly Christian during his time and they held the belief that Jews were an inferior status to Aryan Christians. The Christians blamed the Jews for the killing of Jesus. Jewish hatred did not actually spring from Hitler, it came from the preaching of Catholic priests and Protestant ministers throughout Germany for hundreds of years. The Protestant leader, Martin Luther, himself, held a livid hatred for Jews and their Jewish religion. In his book, “On the Jews and their Lies,” Luther set the standard for Jewish hatred in Protestant Germany up until World War 2. Hitler expressed a great admiration for Martin Luther constantly quoting his works and beliefs.

Now, you must remember before Hitler rose to Chancellor of Germany the country was in a deep economic depression due to the Versailles treaty. The Versailles treaty demanded that Germans made financial reparations for the previous war and Germany simply was not self sufficient enough in order to pay the debt. Hitler was the leader that raised Germany out of the depression and brought them back to a world recognized power. Due to his annulment of the financial woes of the Germanic people he became their redeemer and they anointed him as the leader of the German Reich Christian Church in 1933. This placed him in power of the German Christian Socialist movement which legislates their political and religious agendas. It united all denominations, mainly the Protestant/Catholic and Lutheran people to instill faith in a national Christianity.

FACT: Hitler WAS a Christian. Indisputable. Quoting irrelevant sources doesn’t change this reality.

Comment by Y2Krashman — 8/2/2006 @ 11:43 pm

I quoted Hitler’s own words, Yak. That’s hardly an irrelevant source. Demonize Christians all you want, I quote Hitler’s attitudes toward Christianity versus Islam and WOW, you don’t like it! Guess what? TOO BAD!

Just goes to show how similar your views are to his; and your put downs as far as our faith is concerned are similar as well.

Hitler himself should know how he felt about Christianity, and I have read some of the documents and have some of them reproduced at my website–how they went about infiltrating the Christian churches.

Since when is Albert Speer’s memoirs on Hitler not a good reference for how Hitler felt about the subject? Did you know Hitler personally? If not, then perhaps you should sit up and pay attention there, Mr. National Socialist, lol!

Don’t tell me you don’t recognize that Israel is supported by the US because our roots go back to our common judao-christian heritage, and both countrys’ laws are based on the mosaic law which both Christianity and Judaeism have in common? Where is your brain? Christians don’t hate jews, they’re not anti-semitic–uh…except for perhaps certain catholics like Cindy Sheehan, these days, who’ve slipped away from teachings of the Bible just exactly the same way the Catholic church did in Nazi Germany.

John Ray, who is quite an expert on the subject has several websites up devoted to this subject, in fact. Just because intellectually you have little capacity for critical thinking doesn’t mean the rest of us have to be equally as daft.

So really, stop putting your opinion up as though it’s fact and discounting all the evidence I’ve presented here.

You sound, like I said before, just like the terrorist who put that webiste up saying Hitler was a Christian.

Just because you say it doesn’t make it true. You are a great example of a leftist, now you’re taking the ad hominem fallback position because you have nothing left.

Present your facts and evidence, or shut up.

The Nazis, under Hitler’s direction, wanted to stop the printing and spread of the Bible, and to replace it with Mein Kampf.

The Islamofascists of today, who are reading Mein Kempf in Arabic (like Saddam Hussein did)-want to stop the spread of the Bible and replace it with the Koran and sharia law.

Comment by Cao — 8/3/2006 @ 7:44 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Jun				Aug »
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31