Towards evil
Nazism did not
suddenly arise out of nowhere, but development moved in the same direction for
more than a century.
The same
development is possible today
Contents:
The last century was
by far the bloodiest century in history. Developments
leading to evil are possible even today if we do not learn
from the mistakes of the past. For example, Germany was
considered the most civilized country in Europe before
Nazism became the dominant ideology. More books were printed
there than in other European countries
Liberal theology and
biblical criticism in Germany in the 18th and 19th centuries
contributed to the Christian faith losing its significance
in Germany. Germany was a leading country in religious
criticism, and there were several well-known liberal
theologians who questioned the fundamentals of Christianity.
Nazism and the anti-Christian atmosphere in Germany did not
arise out of nowhere, but had been preceded by several
decades of development.
Darwin's theory was
another reason that caused a revolution in philosophy,
psychology, biology and politics. It changed people's
worldview and influenced Hitler's thinking. It gave a
seemingly scientific basis to atheism and the rejection of
God, but also to the rejection of morality. Morality no
longer had a permanent basis because it was not connected to
God. In addition, Darwin's theory lowered the value of man
by bringing with it racial theories and scientific racism.
Human life was no longer considered qualitatively different
from the rest of creation. There was only a small difference
in degree between humans and animals.
The most famous
exponent of the theory of evolution was Ernst Haeckel
(1834-1919), whose books were printed much more than
Darwin's books. However, Haeckel's influence was also
destructive in other ways. He was anti-Semitic and one of
the first to propose a solution to the Jewish problem. He
also strongly promoted the idea of euthanasia, which later
led to well-known consequences
The Nazis are known
for their euthanasia program. At first, the euthanasia
program only concerned the chronically ill and disabled, but
gradually the socially unproductive, dissidents and
representatives of the wrong race were included.
Nazi anti-Semitism
first manifested itself as strong propaganda, then as
boycotts of movements and finally as violence against Jews.
However, before the Nazis came to power, strong
anti-Semitism had existed in Germany for decades. For
example, in 1890 there were already over 190 anti-Semitic
parties in Germany, many of which later ceased to exist, but
the idea had support.
In modern times, we
are moving towards evil, and this is manifested in several
ways:
The decline in
respect for life by killing children in the womb. Trying to
deny that aborted children are human
The legalization of
euthanasia, or the attempt to legalize it, is a repetition
of what happened in Germany in the early 20th century. The
same arguments are still used
Xenophobia and its
increase is a modern phenomenon. This also happened in
Germany and Austria in the early 20th century, when Jews
fled the pogroms in Eastern Europe and moved to cities
considered tolerant such as Vienna, Berlin and Munich.
Hitler and other Nazis did not like this, and it had
well-known consequences
The Nazis justified
their euthanasia program in the name of love. Similarly,
modern trends such as premarital sex, homosexual
relationships, abortion and euthanasia have been justified
in the name of love.
If one abandons the
Christian faith, one cannot expect anything better in its
place. For example, atheistic beliefs do not provide a basis
for morality, and one is likely to be led into wrongdoing
When
it comes to evil in society, it is, according to the Bible, a problem for all
mankind. The world lies in wickedness
(1
John 5:19), and there is no one who is completely sinless. All have sinned and
are incomplete, as it is written:
- (1 John 1:8) If
we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
- (Rom 3:23) For
all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Even
a Christian who seriously wants to do God's will and do the right thing is not
completely free from sin. It is an unfortunate fact in this lifetime. Evil
hangs in us to some extent, and we cannot be completely separated from it.
Paul brought out this struggle between good and evil very well, and stated
that he had the will to do the right thing, but he did not always succeed in
doing it:
- (Rom 7:18-23)
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwells no good thing: for to
will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good
that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that
I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwells in me.
21 I find then a
law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in
the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see
another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me
into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
The
purpose of this article is to examine evil in society. One of the lessons of
history is that we learn nothing from history. This is possible even in modern
times. The mistake is especially in the fact that the people of today consider
themselves to be somehow different from the people of history. We think that
humanity is developing all the time, and that nowadays we are wiser and better
than in the past.
How do you know this is a lie? You only need to look at a little history. In
the 19th century, there was a similar development optimism in Europe as it is
today. Humanity was thought to be going in a better direction, but what came
of it? The biggest wars and violence in history. Tens of millions lost their
lives either in wars or persecution by the leaders. Well-known are e.g. The
regimes of Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot and numerous communist states where
atheism has been the official doctrine. The worst causes of destruction have
been communism, based on atheism, and Nazi ideology. If they had not come to
power and influenced people's minds, the development of many societies would
have been different and more peaceful. These societies would have avoided many
of the sufferings these ideologies led to.
Thus, a development leading to evil is possible even today, especially because
the generation that experienced the Second World War is gradually leaving our
midst. It only takes a few decades. So what happens when a generation takes
over that no longer remembers the lessons of the past? It is very possible
that we will witness events similar to what happened in the 20th century.
In order to learn from the mistakes of the past, it is worth studying a little
history. One good starting point is the development in Germany before Nazism
got the better of other social views. What makes the development in Germany
significant is that it was considered one of the most civilized countries in
Europe. There was published e.g. more new works than in France, England and
the United States. However, it did not prevent Germany from drifting into
chaos and violence.
But why did an ideology like Nazism prevail in perhaps the most civilized
country in Europe, Germany? The reasons can of course be the instability of
the economy and society as well as other social explanations, but there are
also deeper reasons behind them. Especially the abandonment of Christianity,
liberal theology and the influence of the theory of evolution are important
background factors. That's why we look at the development starting from the
18th and 19th centuries. It is essential because no ideologies are suddenly
born out of nowhere, but usually have a longer development behind them. We
look at the currents that occurred in Germany. The development of this country
involves e.g. the following points:
Liberal theology and Bible criticism in Germany.
One of the main reasons why an ideology like Nazism was able to win in Germany
was the currents that appeared in the universities, one of which was liberal
theology and Bible criticism. Germany was a leading country in religious
criticism, and there appeared a number of well-known theologians who
questioned the fundamentals of the Christian faith. They denied supernatural
phenomena, the historical accuracy of the Bible, and attacked the Jewish roots
of the Christian faith. They were offended by the fact that Christianity was
considered the heir of Judaism. That's why they try to tie it to westernism
and a certain race of people. They spoke of the Aryan religion.
The development of the time 30-50 years before the Nazis is very clear from a
few quotes. The first of them is a statement by the anthropologist Max Müller
from 1878, the second is from a book from 1891, and the third is related to
Karl Marx, who stated that the criticism of religion has been completed in
Germany. The quotations show how the wave of abandoning Christianity started
in Germany already in the 19th century.
Anthropologist Max Müller 1878: Every day, every week, every quarter, the most
widely read magazines tell us that the age of religion is over, that faith is
a hallucination or a disease of children, and that the gods have finally been
revealed and removed as outmoded. (1)
Secondly, the attacks were merely cursory and dispersed during the old times;
now they are regularly organized. The French spirit is roaring and fierce, but
not as dangerous as the German... A far worse disturbance than those French
babblers has been caused in the circles of believers by David Strauss and his
fellow spirits. Ever since the French spirit made its groping attacks against
Christianity in the time of Voltaire, the rejection of Christianity has gone
through the philosophical school of the German spirit and developed into a
whole system of worldview, which has actually tried to place itself instead of
Christianity. (Dr. Chr. Ernst Luthardt in his book in 1891) (2)
"In
Germany, criticism of religion has essentially been completed, and criticism
of religion is a prerequisite for all criticism." (Karl Marx in the
introduction to "Hegel's Critique of Legal Philosophy")
When
there were several opponents of the Christian faith or Bible critics in
Germany, the following is a list of some of the most important names. They
greatly contributed to the fact that the Christian faith in Germany lost its
importance.
Johann Semler
(1725-1791), Johann G. Fichte (1762-1814) and Friedrich Schleiermacher
(1768-1834) were theologians who sought to separate the Christian faith from
its Jewish roots and bind it to Westernism. Friedrich Schleiermacher has been
considered the father of liberal theological thought.
In
the late 1870s, Julius Wellhausen presented his famous theory about the
origin of the books of Moses. He concluded that they could not have been
written by Moses, and that the Old Testament was in no sense the word of God.
Herman Günkel (1862-1932) agreed with Wellhausen's views and considered the
patriarch stories to be myths.
David Friedrich Strauss
(1808-1874) was one of the most famous liberal theologians of the 19th century.
He rejected the supernatural narratives of the Bible and considered them
ahistorical.
Bruno Bauer
(1809-1882) was one of the leading liberal theologians. He denied several
basic things of the Christian faith, and the book he wrote destroyed e.g. the
belief of Friedrich Engels (the second founder of communism along with Marx).
When
there were several well-known figures in Germany who had a negative attitude
towards the Christian faith or other religions, Karl Marx (1818-1883) and
Ludwig Feuerbach were among them. Their influence is evident in Georg Jung's
letter, which also mentions the name of Bruno Bauer, who appeared above:
"If
Marx, Bruno Bauer and Feuerbach together start a religio-political critique,
God had better surround himself with all his angels and surrender to the power
of self-pity, because these three will surely drive him out of heaven. (D.
McLellan: Marx before Marxism, McMillan)
A.
Drews
was one of the liberal professors of the early 20th century. He wrote the book
The Christ Myth, in which he argued that it is a mistake to consider
the historical Jesus as the starting point of the Christian church.
Friedrich
Delitzsch, who was influential in the early 20th century, did not believe in
the revelatory nature of the Old Testament. He wanted to replace it with
Germanic heroic tales.
Rudolf Bultmann
was one of the most famous liberal theologians of the 20th century in Germany.
His influence has extended to our time. He thought miracles and anything
supernatural were impossible. In addition, he stated in an article published
in 1933 that "the Old Testament as such is not the word of God to us, and the
history of Israel in general is not a revelation to us."
Sigmund Freud
(1856-1939) is known as a psychologist, but he was also an atheist and
considered belief in God to be an illusion created by wishful thinking. He
influenced a change in the world view in Germany, just as Darwin had done a
few decades earlier.
When
looking for a reason for the rise of ideologies such as Nazism and Communism,
only economic and social instability reasons may be presented. These are of
course important factors, but they are not the only explanation, as the
previous quotes showed. It was characteristic of the time before and during
Nazism that the Christian faith lost its importance, but the atheistic
worldview and morality gained ground in people's minds (Atheism and
rejection of the Christian faith was also characteristic of communism). In
addition, huge numbers of people left the church, as a quote from a book
published in 1934 shows.
From time to time,
there have been mass movements of abandoning the church in several countries
after the war. Thus, in Germany in 1920, 305,000 people left the evangelical
churches. This escape from the church has continued. In 1930, in Berlin alone,
59,225 persons renounced the Lutheran Church, not to mention those Catholics
and Jews who abandoned the faith of their fathers... We need not say much
about the spread of blasphemous ideas in the 20th century. Suffice it to say
that the number of those who publicly confess or tacitly accept the absolute
non-existence of God has increased immeasurably. Some men who are considered
scholars claim that modern science makes belief in God impossible. They either
completely stop believing in God or present that "science requires a new
understanding of God". This denial of God begins among children at school. In
some cities, thousands of 6-14 year old children, starting from elementary
school, have walked the streets carrying the following posters: "“God out of
schools”, “Take down God-superstitions”, " Religion is an anesthetic” etc.
(3)
In
Germany, therefore, happened apostasy from the Christian faith long before the
Nazis. One example of the development of time is Friedrich Nietzsche
(1844-1900), who was one of Germany's most famous philosophers at the end of
the 19th century. He was a graduate student in theology, but dropped out after
reading Darwin's book On the Origin of Species. He was a fierce opponent of
Christianity and proclaimed the death of the theistic God. He declared that
there is no right and wrong and that nothing has a purpose. He is also known
for his anti-Semitism and superhuman thinking. However, he himself suffered
from an incurable mental illness for the last ten years of his life.
Nietzsche's importance lies in the fact that he was Hitler's favorite
philosopher. Hitler was a great admirer of this philosopher and distributed
Nietzsche's books to his men. In addition, Hitler often visited the Nietzsche
Museum in Weimar and allowed himself to be photographed when he was staring
and admiring at the image of this philosopher.
A
good picture of Nietzsche's meaning is given by the following statement. It is
from a book published in 1934, just five years before World War II. The author
mentioned how Nietzsche's ideas were seen to have a great influence on the
outbreak of the war:
But
these men not only deny God theoretically, but they consider faith in God to
be pernicious to human happiness, and they have set about thoroughly
destroying the godly consciousness of the human soul. Nietzsche, a great
German philosopher who, in the opinion of many, has done more than anyone else
to ignite war, said: "Ideas such as mercy, pity, and mercy are pernicious, for
they signify the transfer of power from strong to weak, whose proper mission
is to serve the powerful. Remember that self-sacrifice, fraternity, and love
are not chastity instincts in the first place, but merely caused conscientious
problems designed to prevent you from being yourself. Remember that man is
essentially selfish." (4)
In
Germany, therefore, there was apostasy from the Christian faith long before
the Nazis. Therefore, it is wrong to assume that Nazi ideology, which rejected
the basics of the Christian faith and the principles of the Ten Commandments
(Do not kill, do not steal, do not say false testimony of your neighbor…)
suddenly arose from nothing and emerged like lightning from a clear sky. This
almost never happens, but ideas must have a broad base of support before they
can become politically possible.
We
take quotations from Olavi Paavolainen's book Risti ja Hakaristi
(1938), which was published just before the Second World War. It describes the
1930s and how the struggle against Christianity was characteristic of the
Nazis, as it was of the Communists. Developments in this direction had taken
place for decades:
Something incomprehensible, about the demon, is happening in the soul of the
German people. Already during World War I, some English propagandists argued
that Germany has never really converted to Christianity, but has always been
pagan and “Germanic” under a weak Christian shell. The phenomena occurring
during National Socialism seem to support this claim in an astonishing way.
…
The struggle against Christianity in the Third Reich has reached such a scale
and so many forms that it is practically impossible to describe it in the
context of a single writing.
…
The harsh censorship of the state had made it almost impossible for the
inhabitants of the Third Reich to follow the church battle, and during this
obligatory ignorance and the dispersal within the church, fierce
anti-Christian propaganda has reached great proportions. The entire
anti-Christian literature, from magnificent works of glory to numerous
magazines and hundreds of thousands flyers, had seen the light of day. The
great man of World War I, General Ludendorff, and his wife had declared that
they would dedicate the rest of their lives to the eradication of Christianity
from Germany.
…
And commonly known are the verses of a Hitler-Jugend song: Wir sind die
Fröhliche Hitler-Jugend, wir brauchen keine christliche Tugend - we are a
happy Hitler-Jugend youth, we do not need any Christian virtues. (5)
Theory of evolution.
It was stated above how liberal theology and atheism was in power in Germany
decades before the rise of the Nazis. It was a question of more than a century
of development, so it was a long process.
What about the influence of Darwin and his theory of evolution? This theory
was already accepted in the 19th century and it had a profound effect on
European societies. Darwin's theory revolutionized philosophy, psychology,
biology and politics. It changed people's world view and influenced even
Hitler's thinking. Hitler believed in evolution and his attitude towards Jews
and other ethnic groups can be at least partially attributed to this belief.
P. Hoffman wrote in his book Hitler's Personal Security on this topic:
"Hitler believed in a struggle in human life according to Darwinian principles,
which forces all people to try to dominate each other. Without a fight they
would degenerate and be destroyed... Even in the face of his own defeat in
April, Hitler expressed his belief in the survival of the fittest and declared
that the Slavic people had proven themselves to be stronger.” (6)
Darwin's theory therefore changed people's world view. It gave a seemingly
scientific basis for atheism and the rejection of God, but also for the
rejection of morality. Morality no longer had a permanent foundation because
it was not connected to God.
As for the human rights violations and injustices discussed in this article,
the theory of evolution itself did not lead to these acts. Instead, this
theory affected people's world view so that they began to question the
sanctity and value of human life. It involves e.g. the following factors:
The border between humans and animals became blurred.
When it comes to the theory of evolution, it is based on the assumption that
all living species today have been inherited from a single primordial cell.
This theory is believed even though the origin of life has not been proven and
even though there are no known examples of real species changes. There are no
examples of changes in species in Darwin's book On the Origin of Species, nor
in other evolutionary literature. Even bacteria have not been observed to
transform into other species of bacteria, let alone other species. Alan Linton,
Professor of Bacteriology at the University of Bristol, has written on the
subject:
Throughout the 150-year history of bacteriological research, there is no
evidence that the bacterial species has changed to another. (7)
How,
then, did Darwin's theory – even though no concrete evidence is found for it –
affect the perception of man? In short, it devalued the human being. Human
life was no longer considered qualitatively different compared to the rest of
creation. There was seen to be only a slight degree of difference between
humans and animals, as humans were thought to have evolved from simple
organisms through gradual changes. As a result, it was difficult to draw a
line between humans and other natural creatures. Man himself was seen to be
subject to constant change, like the rest of nature. During the last hundred
years, when inhumanities have occurred, they have been based on a distorted
image of man:
If it is difficult
for you to believe that evolution is connected to the issues mentioned above,
you will see the connection clearly after studying a couple of historical
examples. In fact, I have yet to meet a single well-educated evolutionist who
disagrees with me about the connection of these moral issues and evolution.
They are not necessarily of the opinion that this is what should have happened
but they do agree that people have applied evolution in this way. It is
important for you not to misunderstand what I’m about to say. Of course, there
were bad philosophies that go against God already before Darwinist evolution.
People did abortions long before Darwin announced his popular view on
evolution. However, people’s beliefs about their origins influence the way
they view the world. When people reject God -- the Creator -- their attitude
towards themselves, other people and our world changes.
(8)
Racial science and scientific racism.
Second, when Darwin's theory became accepted and man was assumed to have
descended from lower animals, it also led to the notion of the inherent
superiority of certain races. It began to be thought that some breeds are
innately more capable, intelligent and better adapted. People were classified
as valuable and less valuable based on race, ability, or other characteristic.
This view, called Social Darwinism, was common in the early 20th century. It
was adopted in many countries. Evolutionary theory thus provided a
quasi-scientific justification for racism and human inequality. It was no
longer believed that the entire human race originated from a single couple and
that all human races have the same short life cycle. This notion was rejected
because of Darwin's theory.
A
good picture of how the view called social Darwinism, scientific racism, was
common in Europe, but especially in Germany, is given by Richard Weikart. In
his book From Darwin to Hitler, he wrote that by 1890 "almost all
influential Darwinian anthropologists and ethnologists—as well as most
Darwinian biologists and popularizers—embraced scientific racism." (9)
Historian H.G. Wells continues on the same topic. He wrote in 1924 how Social
Darwinist thinking and the rejection of belief in God and morality came to
power after 1859, when Darwin had published his book On the Origin of
Species. The quote shows how much Darwin's works influenced people's world
view and behavior. It doesn't matter what we believe about our origins:
Darwinism was a sudden surprise to official Christianity… The immediate impact
of this great controversy… was quite damaging. The new biological science had
not yet produced anything constructive that could have replaced the old laws
of chastity. The result was a real loss of morality… Since 1859, there has
been a real decline in faith. In many cases, the real gold of religion was
thrown away with the worn purse where it had been stored for so long and could
not be recovered. At the end of the nineteenth century, influential and mighty
individuals believed their power was based on the ‘struggle for existence’, in
which the strong and cunning overcome the weak and the confident. (10)
From
De Beer’s work, Charles Darwin can also be seen how Darwin’s teachings
were popular in Germany. They were applied to society and politics. Darwin
himself found such thoughts silly. However, the theory he put forward
contributed to the spread of social Darwinism in society:
Darwin's lack of historical consciousness undoubtedly led him to write his
astonishingly naive letter to Baron von Scherzer: 'How foolish the notion of
socialism and natural evolution there is in Germany.' It happened 26 december
in 1879, and a year later he must have received a shock when he received a
letter from Karl Marx asking him for permission to own an English edition of
his book Das Kapital (Capital) for him. (11)
A
couple of comments further show how Darwin's theory led to Social Darwinism in
the society of its time. It led to a view in which the sanctity of human life
was questioned. That would not have had to happen, but since the theory of
evolution does not provide any moral foundations, it was one possible
development:
It is
clear that the path from Darwinism, Wagnerism, Nietzscheanism and even racism
and anti-Semitism to Nazism was never simple and straight. Of course,
different roads led in different directions. however, for all its tortuousness,
one road actually led to Auschwitz. However great the dangers of goal-directed
thinking, these dangers should not weaken our resolve to understand the
processes and influences that in at least one case led to that goal. I believe
that the fear of complexity is a bad reason to abandon the study of cultural
history.
(12)
Although we should be careful about depicting Darwin as the man, who is
responsible for the beginning of a secular period, we should be equally
careful not to underestimate the importance of evolutionary thought in
questioning the sanctity of human life. (13)
The development in Germany
was influenced by several people, but the most important name in the field of
evolutionary theory was Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), who has become famous for
his Social Darwinism and his fake fetal pictures (He later had to admit his
fraud). He was the "apostle of Darwinism" in Germany and enjoyed immense
popularity among his contemporaries. His popularity and influence as a
promoter of the theory of evolution in Germany and throughout Europe is
illustrated by the fact that although Darwin's book On the Origin of Species
laid the foundation for the theory of evolution, it was only distributed in
small editions and in a few languages. Instead, Haeckel's works were
distributed in hundreds of thousands and in more than 30 languages. His main
work The Riddle of the Universe (Welträtsel) sold more than 100,000
copies in the year of publication in Germany alone. The spread of Haeckel's
works is also illustrated by the fact that his main work Welträtsel (1899)
was translated into Finnish earlier than Darwin's On the Origin of Species,
published 40 years earlier. In addition, Darwin himself gave great value to
Haeckel. In the introduction to his book The Descent of Man (1871), he
praised Haeckel's work on the same subject as more profound and better than
his own book. The Englishman Thomas H. Huxley also considered Haeckel to be a
more prominent popularizer of the theory of evolution than himself.
One
of Haeckel's achievements was the materialistic monism movement, which had
thousands of members in German and Austrian cities. Haeckel organized this
movement, in which it was sworn that there is no God and spirit, only matter.
Significantly, the movement of monists spread precisely to the same
territories as the Nazi National Socialist Party later. The remarkable
influence of Haeckel in Europe at the time has been well described by the
physiologist Max Verworn in 1921:
It is
possible to argue without exaggeration that no scientist has had a greater
impact on the development of the worldview of our time than Haeckel.
(14)
The
Finnish J.E. Aro has also described how Haeckel's teachings spread in Europe.
He wrote in his book Kehitysoppi nykyisellä kannallaan (1907):
But
the more ardent fighters than Darwin himself were his supporters, especially
the just mentioned Huxley from England and Ernst Haeckel from Germany. The
latter in particular has caused "Darwinism" to spread so rapidly on the
European continent, although on the other hand, through his exaggeration, the
struggle has also become more intense than usual and has often moved beyond
the main issue itself. Undoubtedly, it is through Haeckel that Darwinism has
become known to us in wider circles.
Haeckel’s influence has been described also by Pascual Jordan. His mention
appeared in Haeckel's most important work, Welträtsel:
For
the most part, thanks to this book, European unreligiousness has become one of
the greatest spiritual forces of the 20th century.
From
the previous one, it can therefore be concluded how far-reaching influence
Haeckel had in Europe, especially in Germany and Austria. He was the apostle
of evolutionism and irreligion, whose teachings influenced millions. Under his
influence, the Christian faith lost its importance and atheism won the field.
However, Haeckel's influence was also devastating in another way. He was one
of the leading opinion influencers who proposed a solution to the Jewish
question. He was strongly anti-Semitic like some of the liberal theologians
mentioned above. He contributed to the fact that Jews began to be hated. Pauli
Ojala has written on the subject:
Haeckel was, I think, the first to present a program for solving the
Judenfrage. He did not yet mean elimination, but the expulsion of Jews from
university chairs. For him, Judeo-Christian altruism, the protection of the
weak, was a decadent anti-nature. Russian pogroms did not yet have a
biological nuance, while Haeckel launched the idea of the weed of humanity. He
accused the Jews who wrote the NT of poisoning the entire West with
transcendental dualism and flagged "monistic" atheism. Haeckel's followers
Jules Soiree and George Vacher de Lapouge (1854-1936) already demanded the
direct elimination of Jews, out of academic envy before the idealization of
Aryanism. Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945) was a plagiarist by history and
mentality, and his own slogan "Politics is applied biology" was originally
presented specifically by Haeckel. (15)
Haeckel's destructive influence was also manifested in the fact that he was
one of the first to actively promote euthanasia in Germany. He was a scientist
but he represented a similar model that the Nazis later implemented. He
suggested killing the sick and the weak, citing mercifulness just like the
Nazis later. He also used the economic argument that the Nazis also used. When
you understand that Haeckel was a significant influence on the public, who was
listened to and whose works were read, it certainly influenced the Nazi world
view and thinking. In retrospect, one can speculate whether the Nazis would
have left their euthanasia program unimplemented if it had not been for
Haeckel's books. The following quotes are from his works:
We
must classify as tradition and dogma the widespread belief that life should be
maintained and prolonged under all circumstances even if it has become
completely useless - a source of pain to the incurable and an endless
annoyance to their friends. Hundreds of thousands of incurables - moon
lunatics, lepers, cancer patients, etc. are kept artificially alive in our
modern societies and their sufferings are carefully prolonged, without the
slightest benefit to them or to the community. What an enormous amount of
suffering behind these numbers for the invalids themselves, what an amount of
trouble and grief for their families - and what public costs! How much of this
pain and cost would be saved if people dared to decide and free the incurables
from their indescribable suffering through a morphine overdose!" (16)
Among
the Spartans, all newborn children were subjected to a careful examination and
selection procedure. All the weak, sickly or deformed were killed. Only
perfect, healthy and strong children were left alive and only these continued
the race." [Haeckel 1883] Cf. Hitler's line: "Sparta must be considered the
first National Socialist state. Exposing sick, weak and deformed children to
destruction was more decent, more truthful and a thousand times more humane
than the whiny madness with which our modern age preserves even the most
pathological object." (17)
Euthanasia program.
If
you have to name things that the Nazis are known for, one of them was
certainly the so-called a euthanasia program that eventually led to vast
extermination camps. This program began on Hitler's order and was carried out
by a committee of doctors. It was headed by Dr. Karl Brandt in addition to a
few other experts.
Propaganda was also carried out in favor of the euthanasia program. It
prepared people to accept euthanasia. Newspapers and schools showed
calculations of what the chronically ill and disabled cost society. Similarly,
in schools, children were shown a film in which a doctor entered a sick room
and gave a fatal thorn to an elderly person. The doctor then closed the old
man's eyes, turned off the lights, and left the room, calmly explaining, "That
was the right solution—it was the only solution." The Nazis thought that the
right to life had to be earned. If a person was not healthy, he was in the
danger zone.
The circle of people to be killed was also being expanded all the time. At
first, the euthanasia program only concerned the chronically ill and the
disabled, but gradually the socially unproductive, dissidents and
representatives of the wrong race were included. This expansion of the circle
of those who can be killed is easy to understand. Once the idea of the
sanctity of human life had been abandoned, it was easy to go further and
further in the same direction.
However, the Nazi euthanasia program did not start from scratch. The seeds for
development had already been sown decades before. As stated, it was already
brought up by Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) years before the Nazis, before the
existence of the Nazi movement. He wrote about the justification of euthanasia
in his widely distributed books. The same idea was familiar elsewhere in
university and intellectual circles. It all started with a conversation about
the fact that some people's lives are not worth living. It was a small spark
that started in the attitude towards the terminally ill. It was explained that
it is more merciful to end the lives of those suffering and that it is also
beneficial to society financially. In modern times, we can hear exactly the
same arguments, so we repeat the same discussion that took place then.
The following quote tells more about the subject. This comment is from the
American psychiatrist Leo Alexander. He participated in the Nuremberg War
Trials and in 1949 wrote an influential treatise called Medicine under
Dictatorship. It was published in The New England Journal of medicine.
Alexander stated that the change happened little by little and initially got
its strength from how to relate to the terminally ill:
It all started with
doctors accepting the basic idea of the euthanasia movement that some people's
lives are not worth living. In the beginning, in this way, the seriously and
chronically ill were treated. Gradually, socially unproductive, ideologically
and racially undesirable people began to be included -- But it is important to
realise that the extremely small stimulus from which this line of thought drew
its strength was the attitude towards terminally ill people.
The
second comment also suggests how euthanasia thinking was common even before
the Nazis. The Nazis did not invent this thinking but it had been talked over
before them in universities and intellectual circles:
Genocide of people in
Germany did not begin from Nazis and Hitler. Already in the 1920’s
psychiatrist Alfred Hoche and jurist Karl Binding wrote a book about finishing
unviable life. It told about valueless people, and about life that is not
worth living; and that the ending of life should be entitled by legislation.
It was also discussed much about economical costs caused by taking care of
patients like these. Both writers were leading intellectuals. A certain kind
of spirit of the times was born (Fredrik Wertham ym. Inte bara Hitler, Provita
Uppsala, p. 47)
One of the authors
of the book Inte bara Hitler, the historian of ideas Per Landgren, draws the
following conclusion: "The fact that Hoche and Binding were eminent academics
is also a clear example of the fact that ideas were in no way a temporary
blinding of the German people. Nazism did not change science and medicine.
Western science and medicine had already been corrupted and gave an
inspiration for Nazism.” (p. 97) Apparently, the emergence of such a zeitgeist
was influenced by many factors such as Social Darwinism, liberal theology, and
the rejection of biblical authority and secularization in general. Already
from the 1700s, philosophers had laid the foundation for such a collapse of
human dignity. There had been a change in the image of God and the image of
man. There was no longer an absolute value to human life, based on the fact
that God created man in His own image. (18)
Antisemitism.
Three things the Nazis are particularly known for are starting World War II,
the euthanasia program, and intense anti-Semitism, which ultimately led to the
murder of millions of Jews. The Nazis killed other groups of people as well,
such as dissidents, Poles, Russians, Roma - relatively more Roma were killed
than Jews - but most of their killings were directed at Jews.
When the Nazis came to power, they by no means immediately started mass
murders, but their first measure was strong anti-Jewish propaganda, which
appeared e.g. In Der Stürmer magazine.
It
manifested itself in derogatory names - cancerous tumor, parasitic plant,
bloodsucker, fungus... - and made even ordinary Germans negative towards Jews.
Jews were increasingly dehumanized in the German world of thought. The
following quote from the book Gestapo (Frank McDonough: The Gestapo - The Myth
and Reality of Hitler's Secret Police) tells more about the subject:
Years of malicious propaganda demonizing the Jews by portraying them as
physically repulsive, hook-beaked devils had affected even previously tolerant
people. Posters, films and newspapers were full of such anti-Jewish imagery
every day. Max Rainer recalled: "I could no longer hold a German newspaper.
Jews this, Jews that. It was as if there were no other topics left. The papers
competed with each other with their insults, threats, ridiculousness."
Hans
Fritzsche, who at one time held a high position in the propaganda ministry led
by Josef Goebbels and head of the radio department since 1942, has taken a
stand on the same topic, i.e. negative propaganda. He was interviewed during
the interval of the Nuremberg trials in 1946 by Leon Goldensohn. In the
interview, Fritzsche admitted that the crime always starts with negative
propaganda, not just when people are murdered. This is a good reminder of past
decades. Negative propaganda is the first step to evil.
...I feel that there is a religious demand -
You shall love your neighbor as yourself’
- this principle has not been implemented for two thousand years. I would like
even one spark of life to emerge in the darkness of this tragedy. I mean
understanding that a crime doesn't happen until a person is murdered. The
crime starts with propaganda, even if it is for a good cause. The moment the
propaganda turns towards another state or person, evil begins.
(20)
Another
comment points in the same direction. Ronald Boyd-MacMillan was at the
Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp looking at the camp and its incinerators
when he was approached by a rabbi with a series of numbers tattooed on his
arm. The rabbi had told him, pointing to ovens, how meaningful the words were.
It all started with slander, lies and slogans:
You
have to understand this: these crematoria were not originally built of bricks,
but of words! It all started with lies that were initially set in motion as
jokes, slogans and arguments, so soon we Jews became impersonal, stripped of
humanity, beings comparable to animals, and anything can be done to animals!
We didn't realize what was coming until it was too late. (21)
However, eight years passed from the moment Hitler came to power before the
actual mass murders began in the summer of 1941. What happened during this
time? Some experts are of the opinion that the destructive development could
have been stopped at the earliest stage - when the development was still at
the level of speech. The trend, however, was that the rights of the Jews were
narrowed all the time. From the level of mockery, they went further and
further in removing rights.
Susanna Kokkonen has described the development. What is special is that when
the development started with anti-Jewish propaganda and a boycott targeting
the movements, a similar development can be observed today. Many politicians
called for a boycott of Jewish products. History repeats itself again and we
do not learn from previous events.
What
can we conclude based on all of the above? We can clearly state that the
Holocaust was a process. It progressed through the first even hesitant steps
towards the final goal. That goal would never have been reached without a
start. Although contemporaries may well have seen only a collection of
confused and unrelated events, in reality the events across Europe were aiming
at one and the same end point. Evil reaches its peak because of the first
compromise...
So
if we want to understand the time before the Holocaust and the actual years of
the Holocaust through a simple and clear grouping of the nature of the events,
we could do it roughly like this:
1933-1938: Anti-Jewish propaganda, boycott of Jewish movements, legislation
separating Jews from the rest of society;
1938-1939: Destruction of Jewish synagogues, vandalism and imprisonments of
Jews
1939-1941: Jews no longer have any rights, transports to the East;
1941-1945: The murder of Jews in the extermination camps. (22)
This
is a good time to move to the time before the Nazis. It is interesting in
itself that the Jews had adapted well to German society. The assimilation of
Jews progressed faster in Germany than in any other European country. For
example, in the years 1901-1905, fifteen percent of Jews were married to a
non-Jew. In addition, about 40,000 Jews participated in the First World War
alongside the Germans. Many of them received a medal for bravery.
Despite everything, anti-Semitism was common in German society already in the
19th century, just like in Austria. For example, in 1890 there were already
more than 190 anti-Jewish parties in Germany. Many of them stopped later, but
the idea had support. Another milestone was the arrival of Eastern Jews to
Germany and Austria. For example, in Vienna in 1860 there were only 6,200 Jews,
or 2.2% of the population, but in 1890 the corresponding figures were already
72,000 and 10.1%. These poor Jews came to escape pogroms in the East, but they
increasingly faced similar attitudes in the West as well.
What you should pay attention to here is that anti-Semitism during the Nazi
era did not appear out of nowhere, but was preceded by a decades-long process.
The seeds for development had already been sown almost a century earlier. It
was manifested to some extent in the media, in the activities of the parties
and how liberal theologians tried to deny the Jewish roots of Christianity.
The following quotes tell more about the subject. They refer to Bruno Bauer,
who was one of the most influential liberal theologians of the 19th century,
and perhaps the most influential liberal theologian in history, along with
David Friedrich Strauss. The reason for this is obvious. Because when it comes
to the ideology of communism, which has led to the death of tens of millions
of people, it was born under the influence of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels,
who wrote the Communist Manifesto. Both of them were believers in God and
Christ, whose faith was specifically destroyed by Bauer and another liberal
theologian, David Friedrich Strauss (Richard Wurmbrandt Kristus juutalaisella
tiellä , p. 99, and Satan ja Marx, p. 24). As evidence of Karl Marx's earlier
belief, is e.g. the fact that his first literary work was an explanatory work
on the Gospel of John called "The Covenant of the Faithful with Christ".
Friedrich Engelskin wrote Christian poems before losing his faith under the
influence of these liberal theologians. Free-minded liberal theology can thus
be considered partly responsible for the birth of communism ideology and
millions of victims.
So here are some quotes about Bruno Bauer and his contribution to the rise of
anti-Semitism in Germany in the 19th century:
1840s
was pivotal in the history of anti-Semitism: the German theologian and
philosopher Bruno Bauer introduced the “Jewish question” in his political
booklet Die Judenfrage (1843). His booklet gave rise to the need to
resolve the Jewish question. New race theories fitting to nationalism
strengthened anti-Semitism: with the help of this new race biology – or
scientific racism – people started to endorse the idea that the negative
traits of the Jews were characteristically inherited, stationary racial
features. In 1870s anti-Semitism gained a lot of popularity as a political
-and a social phenomenon in Germany as well as in other places, especially in
East Europe. (23)
By the
1840s, the question of the status and freedoms of the Jews had crystallized so
far that it received its own terminological definition; the concept of the
Jewish question was born. The term Judenfrage was coined in Germany, but as
translations it quickly spread wherever the problems related to the
emancipation of the Jews spoke to the mainstream population. The theologian
and historian Bruno Bauer (1809-82) gained fame as a user of the concept of
pioneer. Bauer used quite strong language about the Jews. According to Bauer,
the Jews had always behaved in a way that had given others a reason to attack.
Christians had by no means attacked Jews, but Jews had attacked Christendom.
The reason for everything was the desire of the Jews to rule the world. For
Bauer, the Jews were a caste of strangers with all possible vices but no
virtues at all...
When anti-Semitism began to rear its head as a political movement in Germany
in the 1870s, the word anti-Semitism was part of the basic vocabulary of
anti-Jewish people. The word already had a negative undertone. Now it was only
a matter of time, because a counter-concept would emerge, with the help of
which an attempt was made to combat the perceived negative influence of
Semitism. In 1879, a lot happened in Germany on the anti-Semitic front:
several anti-Semitic publications appeared and Germany's first anti-Semitic
political party saw the light of day. Germany and the whole world gained a new
international word – anti-Semitism. (24)
So what
was the force behind Bruno Bauer's liberal theology and anti-Semitism, and
which had an impact on the birth of both communism and Nazism? Bauer has
partially revealed it himself. He realized that his teachings came from an
evil source. It is quite obvious that he was dealing with a demon that
enslaved his life and from whom his teachings came. It appears from his letter
to his friend Arnold Ruge on December 6, 1841.
"The
lectures I give at the university are listened to by a large audience. I don't
know myself when uttering my words mocking God from behind the pulpit. My
words are so horrible that these children, who should not be offended by
anyone, have their hair standing up. As I recite my mockery of God, I also
remember how righteously I write my sermons on the scriptures and the book of
Revelation. Be that as it may, the demon in whose possession I am so often as
I rise to lecture is extremely evil, and I am so weak that I must surrender to
it... My spirit of mocking God will be satisfied only when I am authorized to
preach openly as a professor of the atheistic system.” (Marx-Engels,
Historic – critic complete edition, Publishing House ME Archiv
Verlagsgesellschaft, Frankfurt a. Main, 1927, vol. I, 1).
TOWARDS EVIL IN MODERN TIMES.
As stated, the lesson of history is that people don't learn anything from
history. The mistake is especially in the fact that the people of today
consider themselves to be somehow different from the people of history. We
think that humanity is developing all the time and that nowadays we are wiser
and better than in the past.
However, such development optimism is a tragic mistake. It prevailed in the
late 19th century, but it was stopped by the greatest wars and violence in
history — at least for a short time. Because now that decades have passed
since the previous wars in Western countries, many have fallen into the same
development optimism as people in the late 19th century. However, in modern
times we can see exactly the same signs as in Germany before the Nazis came to
power. Here are a few of them:
RESPECT OF LIFE OFF
- (Ex
20:13) You shall not kill.
- (Rev
22:15) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and fornicators, and
murderers, and idolaters, and whoever loves and makes a lie.
Perhaps the most famous thing the Nazis are known for is killing people -
especially civilians who did not take part in the hostilities. It is estimated
that they killed several million civilians, including women and children. It
was done through gas chambers, shooting and other means.
So why did the Nazis kill people? One reason is that they considered the
people they killed to be some kind of subhuman. Years of negative propaganda
had led them to this. After listening to years of propaganda, they saw it as
justified to kill their fellow human beings. They saw nothing wrong with that.
However, the lack of respect for human life did not remain with the Nazis.
Because just as there was a change in attitudes in society and doctors then, a
similar thing has happened in modern times. It manifests itself in many
examples:
Abortion
is the first example of a lack of respect for human life. The mother's womb
has become as dangerous a place as the Nazi gas chambers. It is also common
that when the Nazis considered the people they killed to be some kind of
sub-human or non-human, even now aborted children are considered so.
Indeed, the only point by which the evilness of abortion can be denied is that
the fetuses to be aborted are claimed to be something other than humans.
However, this is contrary to the biological knowledge that is known, because
aborted children have exactly the same body members as we do: eyes, nose,
mouth, ears, hands, feet, and other body parts. It is a lie to claim that this
is not a human being. The next couple of quotes are related to this topic.
Both refer to the same body parts we have:
You
can't have an abortion with your eyes closed. You have to make sure that
everything comes out of the womb and calculate that there will be enough arms
and legs, chest and brain. Then when the patient wakes up from anesthesia and
asks if it was a girl or a boy, the limit of my endurance has been reached and
that's when I usually walk away. - If I do a procedure where I clearly kill a
living being, I think it's nonsense to talk about destroying a budding life.
It is killing, and I experience it as killing.”
(25)
At
the hospital, I had a doctor colleague with whom we discussed abortion. She
defended abortion as a woman's right, while I opposed it as a violation of a
child's life. Once in the middle of the work day I met her pale leaning
against the wall and asked if she was sick. She said that she had just
performed an abortion when a tiny leg detached from the thigh had dropped from
the suction machine. She had begun to feel sick and sighed: "This is the work
of a hangman."
(26)
Bernard
Nathanson, who at one time worked hard for the legalization of abortion, who
was one of the three founders of the National Abortion Rights Action League,
who ran the largest abortion clinic in Western countries and who himself
performed tens of thousands of abortions, has written on the same subject. He
changed his position and sees abortion as always murder. The advent of
ultrasound imaging had the effect of changing his attitude:
In
the end, I limited abortions to only those I thought had a compelling medical
reason. This happened in the late 70s. I think rape and incest were compelling
reasons. At that time, I wrote the book Aborting America. In my book, I listed
many medical reasons that I thought to justify abortion. I did a few more
abortions in 1978, then my last one in 1979. I had come to the conclusion that
there was never any reason for an abortion. The living being in the womb is a
human being, and we can no longer continue our war against the most
defenseless human being.
After seeing the ultrasound image, I could no longer continue with the former
model. But this "turn" of mine was purely empirical ....
The crux of the matter, as most abortion advocates define it, is whether the
embryo - or later the fetus - is a "person." It is very important for them to
focus the debate on that question, because there is no doubt that the early
embryo is human. Its entire Genetic map and all its traits are undeniably
human. There is no doubt about its existence either: it exists, alive, it is
independent and does not have the same essence as the mother, so it is its own
whole. (27)
Newborns and small children.
When Hitler came to power, it took 6 years before he issued an order that
doctors had to report to the Nazi regime any child born between 1936 and 1939
who had any birth defect or disease. This order, issued shortly before the
Second World War, resulted in children being taken from the care facilities
that cared for them and taken to special extermination facilities to be killed.
At one time, up to twenty children could be killed. In the Nuremberg war
trials, it was brought out that approx. 275,000 Germans had been murdered
through this program. In addition to small children, the figure includes older
people with disabilities and long-term patients.
When Hitler gave the order to kill people, it was completely consistent with
his racial thinking. According to it, the value of a person does not depend on
his belonging to the human family, but on the fact that he belongs to the
right race and is healthy. The sick could be killed, and this is precisely
what Hitler's order aimed at, with well-known consequences.
However, the same way of thinking that Hitler had is not a thing of the past.
Even Nobel laureates have suggested killing newborns if they are not healthy
or wanted. Such comments have been made by e.g. James D. Watson and Francis
Crick. Their comments are exactly the same as what was presented in university
circles and by scientists (See Ernst Haeckel's statement above!) years before
the Nazis came to power and what Hitler himself presented. So history repeats
itself. It is likely that such speeches and actions will increase in the
future. In principle, this is a logical continuation of abortion. If the child
in the womb is no longer considered a person or worthy of life, why should the
children outside the womb be considered as such?
James
D. Watson: If a child were declared alive only three days after birth, then
all parents would have the opportunity to make the choice that so few are
allowed to make under this system. The doctor could let the child die if the
parents wanted to and thus avoid a lot of misery and suffering. I believe this
is the only possible rational and loving attitude. (28)
Francis Crick: No newborn should be declared human until it has passed certain
genetic tests, and if the test result is unsatisfactory, it should lose its
viability. (29)
Euthanasia.
The Nazi euthanasia program was mentioned above. It was by no means their own
invention, but the idea was born in university circles and by intellectuals.
The Nazis put these ideas into practice.
Nowadays, euthanasia is also talked about. It is already valid in a few
countries and the subject of discussion in numerous other countries. Usually
it means killing elderly and infirm people - however on a voluntary basis. The
arguments in favor of it are also similar to those in Germany at the beginning
of the 20th century. Back then, the matter was justified with compassion, as
in modern times.
However, legalizing euthanasia is always problematic, even if it is based on
voluntariness. It is morally problematic ("You shall not kill!") but also
because it actually increases suffering. It is due to the following reasons:
•
When it comes to suffering patients, it is now possible to treat even severe
pain and shortness of breath to make them asymptomatic. If other means are not
enough, it is possible to anesthetize the patient for a certain period of time.
Hospice care and pain relief for dying patients have also improved
tremendously in recent decades, although there is still room for improvement.
In general, the patients' biggest problem is not physical pain, but
depression, loneliness and the fear of becoming dependent on the help of
others.
How does the legalization of euthanasia affect the situation? It is quite
certain that it will increase the burden of thousands of people. They feel it
is their duty to die because the atmosphere becomes encouraging to die.
Especially if a person is disabled, he is not beautiful, he does not have many
loved ones or he receives expensive treatment, he may feel it is his duty to
die. He can feel himself a burden to others. This kind of atmosphere that
euthanasia leads to is thus one of the reasons for the increase in suffering.
• It
has been established that the further a person is from the care of dying
patients, the more likely he is to support euthanasia. On the other hand, the
vast majority of doctors treating dying patients have not supported euthanasia.
This is easy to understand because killing a patient is against traditional
medical ethics and the Hippocratic Oath. This oath assures: "I will not give
anyone any deadly poison - - likewise I will not give a woman any substances
that destroy the fetus."
Euthanasia also increases the burden on doctors in the sense that they are
ultimately responsible for killing patients. Because whenever we talk about
the right to euthanasia, it means that others - usually doctors - are obliged
to kill. Usually it means that the doctor kills the patient with a poison
injection. Society places this burden and responsibility on doctors.
•
When creating an overview of the history of medicine in Western countries, it
has been greatly influenced by the Hippocratic Oath, the tradition built
around it, and the ethical thinking emerging from the Christian image of man.
They have contributed to the fact that human life has been respected from the
beginning, that is, from the moment of conception. The most important
principles have been saving human lives and alleviating suffering as well as
possible. Many philosophical circles now want to scrap this good and safe
tradition, which has prevailed in e.g. the Nordic countries for decades.
So what is the consequence of legalizing euthanasia? It was already mentioned
above how it increases the mental burden of thousands of people because they
feel it is their duty to die. Second, it increases the burden on many doctors
because they are ultimately responsible for administering the venom injection.
However, euthanasia also affects the increase in distrust towards doctors. The
patient can no longer be as sure of the doctor's benevolent attitude towards
him as before. For example, in the Netherlands, where the practice has been
carried the longest, more than a tenth of the elderly said they were afraid
that their doctors would kill them against their will [30]. Thousands carry a
card in their pocket there, which states that they do not want to be killed
against their will if they end up in the hospital. In countries where
euthanasia is not legalized, people have much more trust in their doctors.
Xenophobia
- (Matt
25:31-46) When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels
with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory:
32
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one
from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set
the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the
King say to them on his right hand, Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit
the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35
For I was an hungered, and you gave me meat: I was thirsty, and you gave me
drink: I was a stranger, and you took me in:
36
Naked, and you clothed me: I was sick, and you visited me: I was in prison,
and you came to me.
37
Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we you an hungered,
and fed you? or thirsty, and gave you drink?
38
When saw we you a stranger, and took you in? or naked, and clothed you?
39 Or
when saw we you sick, or in prison, and came to you?
40
And the King shall answer and say to them, Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you
have done it to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me.
41
Then shall he say also to them on the left hand, Depart from me, you
cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42
For I was an hungered, and you gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and
you gave me no drink:
43
I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you clothed me not:
sick, and in prison, and you visited me not.
44
Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we you an hungered, or
thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister
to you?
45
Then shall he answer them, saying, Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you did it
not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.
46
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into
life eternal.
If we
go back to the time before the Nazi regime, the period was characterized by
increased immigration of Jews to Austria and Germany. They fled the pogroms of
Eastern Europe and moved to cities that were considered tolerant, such as
Vienna, Berlin and Munich. They were often poor, different in their clothing
and appearance, which reinforced people's prejudices. However, they seek
refuge in these big cities. For example, in Vienna, the Jewish population more
than quadrupled in a few decades. However, the result of the increase in the
Jewish population was that politicians who were openly anti-foreign came to
power. This is what happened in Vienna and other cities.
What can be learned from history? At least the fact that massive immigration
has its own dangers. If the economy goes bad and massive immigration increases,
anti-foreign, openly racist politicians can take advantage of it, as happened
decades ago (The fact that some of these politicians say they support
Christian values should not fool you. Hitler also opposed e.g. abortion, but
not because , that he would have cared about the children, but because he
wanted soldiers for his army.). This is very possible, especially if the
economy goes into a downward spiral, as happened in the 1920s and 1930s in
Germany.
What about the Bible's teaching on the subject? According to it, we must
absolutely love the stranger and help the suffering refugees who seek refuge.
Selfishness, which was the sin of Sodom, is not right and should be avoided:
- (Eze
22:7,29-31) 7 In you have they set light by father and mother: in the
middle of you have they dealt by oppression with the stranger: in you
have they vexed the fatherless and the widow.
29
The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised robbery, and have
vexed the poor and needy: yes, they have oppressed the stranger wrongfully.
30
And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in
the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none.
31
Therefore have I poured out my indignation on them; I have consumed them with
the fire of my wrath: their own way have I recompensed on their heads, said
the Lord GOD.
- (Le
19:33,34) And if a stranger sojourn with you in your land, you shall not
vex him.
34
But the stranger that dwells with you shall be to you as one born among
you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the
land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
- (Eze
16:49,50) 49 Behold, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom, pride,
fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters,
neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
50
And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took
them away as I saw good.
However, massive immigration has its dangers, as stated. The best thing would
be for rich countries to support poor countries financially and make a fair
trade policy. It could affect the fact that everyone would have the
opportunity to live in their own country and they would not have to go looking
for a life elsewhere.
And what will happen in the future?
It is possible that
history will repeat itself again. At least the next prophecy refers to how
xenophobia will grow and take more and more similar forms to how Jews were
treated in Germany in the 1930s. The prophecy also refers to the collapse of
morality and the third world war.
Part
of this prophecy can be seen as already fulfilled. The prophecy in question
was received by an elderly Norwegian woman already in the 1960s. The
well-known preacher Emmanuel Minos received the prophecy but kept it for
decades because its fulfillment seemed unlikely. Today it is no longer that:
People will accept
what they see and they will not have only one alternative to watch on TV;
instead, they will have plenty to watch. The TV will work just as the radio.
We will be able to switch from one show to another, and all of them will be
full of violence. People will consider this entertaining. The worst imaginable
murders and scenes of violence will be staged for people to see, and such
behaviour will spread through society. Sexual intercourse will be shown on TV.
The most intimate of things that should only be part of a marriage, will be
shown onscreen. This will happen and you will see it taking place. The laws we
now have will be broken and amazingly lecherous things will be shown to us.
People from poor
countries will flood to Europe. They will also arrive in Scandinavia and
Norway. People will not like the refugees being here, and they will be harsh
towards them. They will treat them more and more like Jews before the war.
This is when the debt of sin will be filled. This will happen right before
Jesus Christ returns – and before WWIII. It will be a short war. Everything I
have experienced about war will be like child's play compared to this. It will
start like a regular war but it will spread and end with atomic bombs. The air
will be so polluted that people will not be able to breathe, and this will
happen on several continents. America, Japan, Australia – the rich countries.
Water will be polluted. We will not be able to cultivate the land in these
places. The people still left in the rich countries will try to escape to the
poorer ones that are undamaged. They will be treated there like we treat them
here, and they will not be willing to accept us.
(31)
TOWARDS EVIL IN THE NAMES OF LOVE.
When
changes occur in society in the realm of morality, they are often justified by
love, compassion, and human rights.
This
is well illustrated by the following examples where the "Do Not Kill" command
is questioned:
• The
Nazis justified their euthanasia program with compassion and love. It was
explained that not all life is worth living and propaganda films were made for
it.
•
Abortion, or the killing of a child, is justified by human rights and
thousands have marched for it.
What
about sexuality? In that area, it has often been possible to defend e.g.
sexual relations without marital commitment or that gender-neutral couples
have children through fertility treatments. In the first case, the child may
be born into a situation where he does not have a home ready. In the latter
case, instead, the child is deprived of the right to live with both biological
parents.
When defending the new morality, there is often sophisticated language. when
euthanasia is advocated, it is not talked about killing, but use roundabout
expressions such as assisted death, easy death, dignified death or good death.
However, the previous cases are about killing a person. Furthermore, when
talking about a good or dignified death, what is actually meant is life. Life
in the last moments can be good or bad, but death itself is the limit for
everyone and it happens in an instant.
The use of language is therefore important, and this is what the following
quote refers to. Circular expressions get us to sympathize more easily than
direct words. The question is about euthanasia:
In
2004, the British Euthanasia Association changed its name to Dignity in Dying.
At the time of writing, their website carefully avoided such direct words as
"euthanasia", "suicide" or "mercy killing". Instead, vague phrases such as "a
dignified death with as little suffering as possible", "the ability to choose
and control how we die", "assisted death" and "the decision to end suffering
that has become unbearable" were used instead.
Not
everyone is convinced by this approach. One Daily Telegraph commentator said:
"It says something when an organization has to refer to itself by a roundabout
term. The Euthanasia Society now plans to call itself "Dignity in Dying". Who
among us would not want to die with dignity? It’s not hard to believe that the
promoters of euthanasia (indeed!) are afraid to say directly what they’re
actually driving, namely killing people. ” (32)
One
hospice nurse responded to the description of assisted suicide with the term
"assisted death": "Midwives assist in childbirth, and palliative care nurses
assist with special palliative care. Assisting is not the same as killing. The
term 'assisted death' offends those of us who provide good end-of-life care.
It is a deception in which killing is sanitized to make it more acceptable to
the general public. It implies that a person can only die with dignity if they
are killed." (33) (34)
What
happens when people give up the Christian faith?
It is well known that atheists attack the Christian faith. This has been done
publicly by Richard Dawkins and other well-known atheists.
In
reality, however, the target of these persons' attacks is usually not the
Christian faith and its content, that is, what Jesus and the apostles taught.
Instead, they have usually focused their attention on what constitutes
apostasy and where the teachings of Jesus and the apostles have not been
followed. So the atheists are right in their accusations, but the fault is not
in the Christian faith, that is, in the teachings of Jesus and the apostles,
but in people who do not respect and follow their teachings. Everyone knows
that Jesus was perfectly good and righteous when he was on earth, and if we
follow his example, then there can be no hatred or wrongdoing towards others.
There can be no anti-Semitism, no spiritual violence and no other injustice.
Therefore, a person who does wrong does not follow the example and teachings
of Jesus. Another possibility is that such a person has not even come into
contact with God. For example, Paul wrote: Know you not that the
unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived ... (1 Cor
6: 9).
So
where does atheism lead? Its problem is especially that it is difficult to
justify any moral values on the basis of atheism and natural sciences. It is
difficult for an atheist to anchor the concepts of good and evil to anything
permanent if he does not take God into account. So Fyodor Dostoyevsky, a
well-known writer, stated in his time: "If there is no God, everything is
permitted. The seed of immense destruction is attached to Western rationalism.
When God is made non-existent and removed from the world, the measure of
everything is man. And after that there is no evil , which could not be
justified by reason. Even killing an innocent person can be explained as
morally justified and beneficial." (35). He was absolutely right, because
if morality is based on a person, it varies from person to person. There may
be a big difference between the worst dictators and, for example, Mother
Teresa.
Thus, atheism is more dangerous than, for example, Islam. It is so in theory,
but the last century also proved it in practice. The leaders of Communism were
openly atheistic and the leaders of Nazism were either atheists or at least
persons who did not believe in the judgment that is after this life. If they
had believed that they would have to answer to God for their actions, they
certainly would not have committed them. The thought of judgment after this
life and the belief in it keeps one from doing wrongs to others.
John C.
Lennox: Marx was of the opinion that, "because religion is only an illusion of
human happiness, its defeat is necessary for their true happiness." Atheism,
then, lies at the very heart of the communist agenda. For this reason, many
citizens of former communist countries, with whom I have discussed atheists'
assurances, reject them mad and ridiculous. Haven't Dawkins, Hitchens, and
Harris ever read the Black Book of Communism, which shows that "communist
rulers in support of their power by creating a system of government whose
actual mode of action has been genocide?"
They
are estimated to have caused about 94 million deaths, of which 85 million are
the responsibility of China and Russia alone. (36)
Alexandr Solzenitsyn: Over half a century ago, when I was still a child, I
remember hearing many elderly people talking about the disasters that Russia
faced like so: “People have forgotten about God; this is all because of it.”
After that I have studied the Russian revolution for over 50 years; during
that time I have read hundreds of books, collected personal stories and have
written eight books myself to research those phases. But, if I were asked to
summarize as shortly as possible the primary reason for the horrific
revolution, which took ca. 60 million of our people, I could not say it any
more clearly than to repeat: People have forgotten about God; this is all
because of it.”
(37)
The
previous quotes were related to communism and its atheistic system. At the end
of this, it is worth taking a prediction from the 19th century, which is
related to the development of Germany, because this writing has mainly
discussed the development in Germany. The prediction is from Heinrich Heine's
1834 work Zur Geschichte der Religion und Philosophie in Deutschland (History
of Religion and Philosophy in Germany). It is an eerie description of what
would happen in Germany a hundred years from now. This prediction really came
true. When the Christian faith lost its influence, it was replaced by Nazi
ideology, which had no place for an almighty God. A similar development is
very possible again in Western countries, because the Christian faith has lost
its meaning. If there is an economic depression like before the rise of Nazism,
anything is possible. Here is the prediction from 1834:
The
Christian faith - which is its greatest achievement - has to some extent
reduced the cruel love of the Germans for war, but has not been able to
destroy it. If that restraining talisman - the cross - is crushed, then the
frantic madness of the ancient warriors, the insane rage that the Nordic bards
have often talked about and sung, will once again ignite into flames. This
talisman of mine is fragile, and once comes the day when it collapses
miserably. Then the ancient stone gods rise from the forgotten rubble and
massage the millennial dust from their eyes, and finally Tor jumps up and
smashes the Gothic cathedrals with his huge hammer. ... Thought precedes
action as lightning precedes thunder. ... When you hear a rumble like never
before heard in world history, you know that Germany's lightning strike has
finally hit. In that rumble, the eagles of the sky fall dead to the ground and
the lions of even the most remote deserts in Africa hide in their royal caves.
In Germany, a play is performed that makes the French Revolution look like an
innocent idyll. (38)
References:
1. Quote from Diogenes Alleni: Christian Belief in a Postmodern World,
p.2
2. Toht. Chr. Ernst Luthard: Kristinuskon perustotuuksista, p. 2
3. L.H. Christian: Kylvöä ja satoa, p. 114,115
4. L.H. Christian: Kylvöä ja satoa, p. 124
5. Olavi Paavolainen: Risti ja hakaristi, p. 211, 214, 239, 290
6. Peter Hoffman: Hitler’s Personal Security, p. 264
7. Linton AE, Times Higher Education Supplement (20.4.2001), p. 29
8. Ken Ham: Valhe, evoluutio, The Lie: Evolution, p. 112,113
9. Richard Weikart: From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics,
Eugenics and Racism in Germany, p. 114
10. H.G. Wells: Historian ääriviivat 1924, p. 746, 747
11. De Beer: Charles Darwin, p. 266
12. Steven Ascheim E.: In Times of Crisis: Essays on European culture,
Germans and Jews, p. 111
13. Nick D. A. Kemp: ”Merciful Release” The History of the British
Euthanasia Movement, p. 19
14. Richard Weikart: From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics,
Eugenics and Racism in Germany, p. 11
15. Usko ja tiede, p. 33
16. Ernst Haeckel: Wonders of life, 1904, p. 118
17. Hitler's Secret Book, p. 18; Haeckel, The History of Creation, 1883, 1. p.
170.
18. V.R.: monisteita
19. Max Rainerin lausunto siteerattu teoksessa Burleigh, Third Reigh, p. 300
20. Leon Goldensohn: Nürnbergin haastattelut (The Nuremberg
Interviews), p. 120
21. Ronald Boyd-MacMillan: Faith that Endures: The Essential Guide to
the Persecuted Church (2006), Revell. USA
22. Susanna Kokkonen: Matka holokaustiin, p. 173,175
23. Antero Holmila: Holokausti, tapahtumat ja tulkinnat, p. 33
24. Eero Kuparinen: Antisemitismin musta kirja, p. 143,144,153,154
25. Suomen kuvalehti, n:o 15, 10.4.1970
26. Päivi Räsänen: Kutsuttu elämään (?), p. 146
27. Bernard Nathanson: Antakaa minun elää (The Hand of God) p. 109,111
28. was originally published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association, Prism, May 1973
29. Pasific News Service, January 1978
30. Richard Miniter, ”The Dutch Way of Death”, Opinion Journal (April
28, 2001)
31. Prophecy received in Norway and passed on by Emmanuel Minos
32.
https://telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/3622559/Euthanasias-euphemism.html
33. Cited in the article Finlay, I.G. et.al., Palliative Medicine, 19:444-453
34. John Wyatt: Elämän & kuoleman kysymyksiä (Matters of Life and Death),
p. 204,205
35. Suomen kuvalehti 13/9.96 H Hakamies
36. John C. Lennox: Tähtäimessä Jumala (Gunning for God), p. 109
37. Jukka Norvanto: Raamattu elämään, Alussa 1 Moos 1-5, p. 34
38. Cited from: Eric Metaxas: Bonhoeffer, pastori, marttyyri, näkijä, vakooja,
p.177
More on this topic:
The worldview and goals of modern value liberals are very
similar to those of the early communists and Nazis
The evil spirit
world influenced in the background of Nazism and World War II. The same thing
emerges in the background of today’s societies
Read how
people defend injustice, one's own selfish lifestyle and increase children's
suffering in the name of equality and human rights
Statistics
show an increase in child nausea all the time. The reason is the selfishness
of adults in the area of sexuality and the changed morality of society
Society’s morals
and people’s worldviews are constantly changing. What is the position of the
Christian faith in the midst of everything
There is a lot
of talk these days about tolerance, but is it just a question that the line
between right and wrong has been shifted all the time?
Bible prophecy
refers to the last days as well as the coming of Jesus. Read how these
prophecies are currently being fulfilled
The generation
of Noah and the city of Sodom experienced judgment because of their continuing
wickedness. Is the same possible in modern times?
|
