"Tyranny never has much trouble drumming up the smiles of prompt agreement, but a democracy stands in need of as many questions as its citizens can ask of their own stupidity and fear... dissent is what rescues the democracy from a slow death behind closed doors."
Lewis Lapham
"Cause for Dissent" Harper's Magazine, April 2003

Hitler Was Not An Atheist

"Grace of God," "divine grace," God forbid," "God be thanked," and "God knows," are not phrases likely to be used by an atheist certainly not on a regular basis. Yet, Mein Kampf, the book by Hitler that most scholars view as the blue print for Nazi Germany is littered with these phrases. The false notion that Hitler was not only an atheist but epitomizes what it means to be an atheist has been used by Christian critics for decades. I am not sure whether it stems from ignorance, willful or otherwise, or from something worse. This myth is not promoted solely by right wing religious critics of atheism. There are numerous liberals and moderates who have promoted the lie as well. Why? Anyone with a functional brain and an interest in the truth could easily figure out that it is a blatant falsehood. Is it a defensive projection? It can easily be debated whether Hitler was a "good" Christian or not but it is no way debatable that he was Christian. Get transcripts of his speeches or read Mein Kampf. They may not be easy to stomach but they are pretty clear on Hitler's personal views.

Some examples:

"Therefore, I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator: By warding off Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work." (V.1 Ch.2, p.84)

"This perseverance is only and always the result of a certain spiritual conviction alone. All force which does not spring from a from spiritual foundation will be hesitating and uncertain." (V.1 Ch.5, p.222)

"The result of any crossing, in brief, is always the following:
a. Lowering of the standard of the higher race,
b. Physical and mental regression, and, with it, the beginning of a slowly but steadily progressive lingering illness.
To Bring about such a development means nothing less than sinning against the will of the Eternal Creator" (V.1 Ch.11, p.392)

"Should not the same renunciation be possible if it is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the permanently continuous original sin of race poisoning and to give the Almighty Creator being as He Himself created them?" (V.2 Ch.2, p.611)

All excerpts from the annotated edition of Mein Kampf


So if you hear anyone state that Hitler was an atheist make a point of correcting them.

An Inflatable Chapel

Anyone else come across news stories on the inflatable chapel? I think it does a pretty decent job summing up religion as a whole. It is a little unsightly, definitely silly, and is far more likely to cause controversy and conflict than it is to be beneficial.

"Art is not a handicraft, it is the transmission of feeling the artist has experienced."
Lev Tolstoy

The Arts are also rife with Anti-atheist bigotry

A recent example of the blind prejudice and ignorance in the arts can be found in Quentin Letts recent review, "Hallelujah! Miracles Do Happen." In praising the play The Faith Machine he notes that, "the Royal Court's latest play is a breakthrough in the religion v atheism battle." Yet, he never provides any breakthrough. Lett's seem to think the play is unique since, "It does not serve up the sort of pro-Darwin propaganda pumped out by the BBC."  If he means pro-evolution he should say so. Using Darwin just shows from the start how ignorant he is. This, of course, makes me wonder if he'd prefer pro-creationist/fairy tale propaganda.

Letts also seems to intentionally ignore some rather major details of the play in order to push his claim that it is unique. He doesn't seem to notice, for instance, that the major character who is the least likable with the most questionable personal ethics and morals happens to be the atheist. The character who is not only the most likable but the moral center of the play is the religious girlfriend of the atheist. This is Letts "breakthrough." It sounds like standard anti-atheist bullshit to me. The moral/ethical dilemmas that drive the plot all seem to be fairly standard both in their presentation and theatrical usage. A slightly more revealing and accurate review can be found at The Guardian.

It is interesting to note that both the play and reviews are from England which is generally viewed as being more open to atheism