You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #336: Maybe you should actually read what is at your link [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
D23MIURG23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #328
336. Maybe you should actually read what is at your link
Hitler's private statements about Christianity were often conflicting. Hitler's intimates, such as Joseph Goebbels, Albert Speer, and Martin Bormann suggest that Hitler generally had negative opinions of religion, although the historical validity of some remarks has been questioned, particularly the english translation of Hitler's Table Talk. Historian Ian Kershaw remarked upon questionable nature of Table Talk as a source, stating "the `table talk monologues of the last months (the so called `bunkergesprche) of which no German text has ever been brought to light must be treated with due caution."<18> Historian Richard Carrier goes further, contending that certain portions of Table Talk especially those regarding Hitler's hostility of Christianity are poor mistranslations.<19> Carrier states that Hitler was criticizing Catholicism in particular, while remaining entirely religious.<20> Albert Speer confirmed the authenticity of Henry Picker's German transcripts, which was published in 1951 as Tischgesprche im Fhrerhauptquartier.<21> Carrier states, "It is clear that Picker and Jochmann have the correct text and Trevor-Roper's is entirely untrustworthy."<20>...

Goebbels notes in a diary entry in 1939: "The Fhrer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. ...

from your link - emphases mine.


No, we aren't going to argue about Stalin or Mao, just as we wouldn't argue about Bertrand Russell. These people, after all, were clear and open about their atheism, and didn't leave any doubts about where they stood. They did not have histories of making strong statements of faith and only vague, questionable implications of heresy and or non-belief. I don't know what "deeply religious but deeply anti-christian" means, but it isn't athiesm, especially given that his public persona was entirely married to religion. Are we going to argue about whether Pat Robertson is an athiest next? Who knows what he really thinks, after all? Do you think it matters at all when someone is an open member of a religious sect, or is their public conduct something that can be waved away at a whim?

(apologies to Bertrand Russell for the dismal company)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC