What are the root causes of anti semitism in Enlightened Western world ?

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
7,973
Oh? I've never heard that argument, although it's true Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah. There's actually a pretty good reason; Jesus simply did not exhibit the description or actions of the expected messiah. (The Mashiach)

I grew up devout Catholic and was pretty familiar with Church doctrine as well as some of theology behind Catholic doctrine.I've never heard that 'affront' claim before. I do remember Pope John Paul 11 'absolving' the Jews of fault in the death of Jesus. Of course, I maybe simply wrong. Could you perhaps provide a few sources for your claim?
It's a meme that been around Christianity for a long time.


Jewish deicide - Wikipedia
 
Oct 2018
684
Adelaide south Australia
It's a meme that been around Christianity for a long time.


Jewish deicide - Wikipedia
As I said, I've never heard it. A far as I'm aware it has never 'been around' Catholicism, which WAS Christianity for 1500 years, until The Protestant Reformation was kicked off by Martin Luther in 1517.

You have made a claim; the burden of proof is with you. Kindly provide your proof.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
6,863
Dear Bart, as with your first response, you do not seem to have read what I have posted. This time, I even underscored the "NOT". Therefore, I agree with most of what you stated, just a few things:

[
The Nazis didn't "occasionally pander to those who held religious anti-Semitism", they were a) quite frank about where their antisemitism came from, as indicated by, again, "Mein Kampf", for example, and b) established an entire organization that explicitly argued the case for the Nazis by making recourse to the Christian doctrine. The last "pandering" of Hitler has been dated to a 1928 speech, if I recall that correctly. More accurately, what the Nazis did was "their thing", in general, and then they also left some room for Christian followers to establish their own structures. Thus, it is wrong to state that "the Nazis used Christianity as an alibi" and that "the Nazis weren't religious, at all" as there was a sizable portion of religious (Christian) Nazis around at the time. You didn't do this, but this is the context for my contributions] If the statements had been: "the highest echelon of Nazis wasn't (Christian) religious, at all, from the 1920s onward", and "the Nazis used Christianity to 'recruit' believing Christians", I would entirely agree.
What you say seems to undermine your point. It seems to support what others were saying, that the Nazis exploited existing prejudices for their own endzls, but their motivstions were not religiously based and the Nazis were running things and determining policy. The Final Solution was based on Nazi raced based ideology, not religious. Hitler makes it crystal clear that he did not have a big problem with the Jess as long as he thought of them just as religion. He even specifically statez at one time.e took them to be Germans when he thought the only thing distinguishing Jews was their religion.

The earlier genocide by the Turks against the Armenians was somewhat similar to the Nazi to the Jews, but unlike the Nazis, it did have a strong religious element in it's motivation, even it was mostly motivatex by nationalism. That the equally no Turkish but still Muslim Kurds did not suffer this genocide shows that religion was a major factor. There is no evidence for such a religion factor in the Nazi's actions, although religious antise.iticism might have made some more willing to go along with the Nazis program.

That a few Christians fell for Nazi propoganda, and supported the Nazis because of their religion anti-semitism may be true, but the actions caused by the Nazis and the atrocities committed by them were not motivated by religious antisemiticism.

The reason why this is important is not only that there had been a very successful campaign by the Church and Christians in postwar Germany obfuscating the role Christian Nazis played during the Third Reich, it is also important because many people believe that Christian antisemitism itself has nothing to do with modern antisemitism. This is not the case, especially, like I already noted, as some of the most prominent antisemitic figures in the German speaking of the late 19th and early 20th century were Christians.
It is successful because it happens to be mostly true. Hitler was not antisemitic as long as he thought of Jews I religious terms. "Christian " Nazi played little in Nazi philosophy, and they played no greater role than "Agnostic" Nazi, or "Hindu" Nazi, except there were more of them, since most of Germany was nominally Christian, so statistically that would have been the case.

BUT, it is imortant that these Christians are not let off the hook entirely , because religious antisemicism did probably play a role in why the Germans went along with Nazis actions and did not oppose them more. Simply because Christian Nazis played little role in shaping Nazis thoughts and actions , does not make them innocent of a failure to oppose the Nazi or being accomplices to theirs actions . But that is different from what you are saying.

But religion itself played little role in the rise of Nazis, or their philosophy. Politics, race was the motivation for those Nazi who just happened to be Christian, and others. Religion itself played little role. The only religion that could be said to play a significant role was what we now call New Age, and neo paganism. They did play a role I shaping Naizi though and doctrine.

I know that Nazi organizations like the SS discouraged Christian beliefs in new recruits. Keep in mind, only 8.5 million out of 65 million Germans were actually Nazi, and Nazi would not have likely risked an open attack on the nominal religion of the majority of its citizens.
 
Last edited:

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
7,973
As I said, I've never heard it. A far as I'm aware it has never 'been around' Catholicism, which WAS Christianity for 1500 years, until The Protestant Reformation was kicked off by Martin Luther in 1517.

You have made a claim; the burden of proof is with you. Kindly provide your proof.
did already look at the link.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
7,973
BUT, it is imortant that these Christians are not let off the hook entirely , because religious antisemicism did probably play a role in why the Germans went along with Nazis actions and did not oppose them more. Simply because Christian Nazis played little role in shaping Nazis thoughts and actions , does not make them innocent of a failure to oppose the Nazi or being accomplices to theirs actions . .
I agree in general that there is no real christian unpinning of Nazi ideology , anti-Jewish or otherwise.

However the centre party and the church were willing to come to agreement with the Nazi regime, looking after it's own narrow interests accepting teh dictatorship (of course Hitler failed to live up to his side of the bargin)

The center Catholic party helped pass the enabling act the ushered in unrestricted dictatorship.
 
Oct 2018
684
Adelaide south Australia
did already look at the link.

I must have missed something; the link is about the Jews as Christ killers. I won't argue about the veracity of the charge. It is enough that the claim was taught and believed for centuries(up tp and including when I was at school) and was used into the twentieth century as an excuse to murder Jews in pogroms

It was that charge which was at the base of 15000 of European antisemitism.

The proof I still seek is the basis for the claim that the existence of the Jews was/is an affront to Christians. I remain unaware of such a claim either in Catholicism or amongst Protestants.

Provide proof/ don't provide proof. I don't have enough invested in this topic to bother further.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
7,973
I must have missed something; the link is about the Jews as Christ killers. I won't argue about the veracity of the charge. It is enough that the claim was taught and believed for centuries(up tp and including when I was at school) and was used into the twentieth century as an excuse to murder Jews in pogroms

It was that charge which was at the base of 15000 of European antisemitism.

The proof I still seek is the basis for the claim that the existence of the Jews was/is an affront to Christians. I remain unaware of such a claim either in Catholicism or amongst Protestants.

Provide proof/ don't provide proof. I don't have enough invested in this topic to bother further.
calrification it's a meme that been around Christianity it's not a core belief or anything, but it's survived as a fingre belief of a small minority of christains.

I'm not saying it's offoiical dogma, widely taiught or believed, but a persistent fringe thing.
 
Dec 2011
1,268
What you say seems to undermine your point.
It only seems so if you are ignoring what I wrote:
It seems to support what others were saying, that the Nazis exploited existing prejudices for their own endzls, ...
Yes, that is what they did, and I entirely agree! What I am arguing is - on the contrary - that they didn't use Christianity "as an alibi, a cover and a moral justification" as has been claimed (post #134). Which is, by the way, a rather popular opinion, hence I felt it is important to address it. Now, one might be tempted to say that the Nazis might have used religion "as an alibi" with regard to these believing Christians I am talking about. While this claim might have some merit, I did not qualify my rejection of the quoted statement above because it appears to me that, rather than using Christianity as a cover, the Nazis simply allowed Christians to keep doing "their thing" emphasizing the potential of synthesizing both ideologies. To put it more bluntly: The Nazis didn't come and say: "Hey, we are antisemites because of this religious reason" and in reality they were motivated only by racial, political and economic thinking, rather they said: "This is what we think, if you are not cool with it, screw you, if you don't care, fine, but be aware that there are parallels in our thinking and if you are cool with us, come on board".

... but their motivstions were not religiously based and the Nazis were running things and determining policy. The Final Solution was based on Nazi raced based ideology, not religious. Hitler makes it crystal clear that he did not have a big problem with the Jess as long as he thought of them just as religion. He even specifically statez at one time.e took them to be Germans when he thought the only thing distinguishing Jews was their religion
Again, I have already agreed to the first part and pointed out the second myself.

There is no evidence for such a religion factor in the Nazi's actions, although religious antise.iticism might have made some more willing to go along with the Nazis program.
Here is where my second argument comes into play: "The Nazis" didn't exist, there were many and they differed substantially in their views. Obviously, we can find some common ground between all of them, hence making it worthwhile to subsume them under this category, in the first place. BUT, there were Nazis who were ALSO Christian and whose motivation to become Nazis was, at least partially, rooted in Christian doctrine. Hence, the claim that "the German Nazis [...] were not religious at all" (post #128) is not true.

Now, and as I explained before, I am not making an absolute statement of the kind of: "if there was one dude in the Nazi party who was also a Christian, this claim is not true". This would be absurd. Rather, I am claiming that there had been a sizable portion of Christian who were also Nazis and whose antisemitism was also motivated by religious teachings, and that this fact matters for how we view the role of the church and religion in modern antisemitism, in principle.



That a few Christians fell for Nazi propoganda, and supported the Nazis because of their religion anti-semitism may be true, but the actions caused by the Nazis and the atrocities committed by them were not motivated by religious antisemiticism.

It is successful because it happens to be mostly true. Hitler was not antisemitic as long as he thought of Jews I religious terms. "Christian " Nazi played little in Nazi philosophy, and they played no greater role than "Agnostic" Nazi, or "Hindu" Nazi, except there were more of them, since most of Germany was nominally Christian, so statistically that would have been the case.

BUT, it is imortant that these Christians are not let off the hook entirely , because religious antisemicism did probably play a role in why the Germans went along with Nazis actions and did not oppose them more. Simply because Christian Nazis played little role in shaping Nazis thoughts and actions , does not make them innocent of a failure to oppose the Nazi or being accomplices to theirs actions . But that is different from what you are saying.
Yes, that is different from what I am saying because it is NOT what I am saying. First of all, I am arguing that it weren't just "a few", but a "sizable portion". Second, I have not claimed that Christian Nazis "shaped Nazi thought and actions", [although I did say that antisemitic non-Nazi Christians decades before the Nazis even came into existence most likely did shape Nazi (Hitler's) thought (post #132)]. My second point speaks entirely to the question of whether the Nazis "weren't religious at all".

But religion itself played little role in the rise of Nazis, or their philosophy. Politics, race was the motivation for those Nazi who just happened to be Christian, and others. Religion itself played little role. The only religion that could be said to play a significant role was what we now call New Age, and neo paganism. They did play a role I shaping Naizi though and doctrine.
Again, I agree that religion played little of a role, here. Whether Neo-Paganism was as influential as you claim, I would heavily doubt but I will not argue this point because this would require isolating the "völkisch-religiöse" ((Germanic) racial-religious) movement from the general "völkische" and not explicitly religious elements of neopaganism which would be an awful lot of work.

I know that Nazi organizations like the SS discouraged Christian beliefs in new recruits. Keep in mind, only 8.5 million out of 65 million Germans were actually Nazi, and Nazi would not have likely risked an open attack on the nominal religion of the majority of its citizens.
What do you mean by "open attack", exactly? Expropriating, oppressing, incarcerating and killing many of those Christians in organizations who did not agree with him is, in my book, quite open an attack. If you mean, "why didn't he outright ban Christianity?", than yes, one of the reasons most likely had been that he would have alienated a substantial part of, at the very least, Southern Germans and Austrians, although some scholars have noted that Hitler just didn't think Christianity was of a particular importance and that he, thus, concentrated on the Jews, Bolshevism and Capitalism as his prime antagonists. Indeed, Hitler thought Christianity would, at some point after National Socialism's final victory, simply disintegrate because it would lose its appeal compared to the glory of National Socialism. But, again, I do agree that the Nazis "used" Christianity for their purposes.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2010
15,005
Welsh Marches
It only seems so if you are ignoring what I wrote:

Yes, that is what they did, and I entirely agree! What I am arguing is - on the contrary - that they didn't use Christianity "as an alibi, a cover and a moral justification" as has been claimed (post #134). Which is, by the way, a rather popular opinion, hence I felt it is important to address it. Now, one might be tempted to say that the Nazis might have used religion "as an alibi" with regard to these believing Christians I am talking about. While this claim might have some merit, I did not qualify my rejection of the quoted statement above because it appears to me that, rather than using Christianity as a cover, the Nazis simply allowed Christians to keep doing "their thing" emphasizing the potential of synthesizing both ideologies. To put it more bluntly: The Nazis didn't come and say: "Hey, we are antisemites because of this religious reason" and in reality they were motivated only by racial, political and economic thinking, rather they said: "This is what we think, if you are not cool with it, screw you, if you don't care, fine, but be aware that there are parallels in our thinking and if you are cool with us, come on board".

Again, I have already agreed to the first part and pointed out the second myself.


Here is where my second argument comes into play: "The Nazis" didn't exist, there were many and they differed substantially in their views. Obviously, we can find some common ground between all of them, hence making it worthwhile to subsume them under this category, in the first place. BUT, there were Nazis who were ALSO Christian and whose motivation to become Nazis was, at least partially, rooted in Christian doctrine. Hence, the claim that "the German Nazis [...] were not religious at all" (post #128) is not true.

Now, and as I explained before, I am not making an absolute statement of the kind of: "if there was one dude in the Nazi party who was also a Christian, this claim is not true". This would be absurd. Rather, I am claiming that there had been a sizable portion of Christian who were also Nazis and whose antisemitism was also motivated by religious teachings, and that this fact matters for how we view the role of the church and religion in modern antisemitism, in principle.




Yes, that is different from what I am saying because it is NOT what I am saying. First of all, I am arguing that it weren't just "a few", but a "sizable portion". Second, I have not claimed that Christian Nazis "shaped Nazi thought and actions", [although I did say that antisemitic non-Nazi Christians decades before the Nazis even came into existence most likely did shape Nazi (Hitler's) thought (post #132)]. My second point speaks entirely to the question of whether the Nazis "weren't religious at all".


Again, I agree that religion played little of a role, here. Whether Neo-Paganism was as influential as you claim, I would heavily doubt but I will not argue this point because this would require isolating the "völkisch-religiöse" ((Germanic) racial-religious) movement from the general "völkische" and not explicitly religious elements of neopaganism which would be an awful lot of work.


What do you mean by "open attack", exactly? Expropriating, oppressing, incarcerating and killing many of those Christians in organizations who did not agree with him is, in my book, quite open an attack. If you mean, "why didn't he outright ban Christianity?", than yes, one of the reasons most likely had been that he would have alienated a substantial part of, at the very least, Southern Germans and Austrians, although some scholars have noted that Hitler just didn't think Christianity was of a particular importance and that he, thus, concentrated on the Jews, Bolshevism and Capitalism as his prime antagonists. Indeed, Hitler thought Christianity would, at some point after National Socialism's final victory, simply disintegrate because it would lose its appeal compared to the glory of National Socialism. But, again, I do agree that the Nazis "used" Christianity for their purposes.
Very good talk on this (though limited to the Protestant churches):

 

Similar History Discussions