I am surprised no one has challenged Nancy's statement appearing below, as it irreconilable with Nazi ideology and with Hitler's recorded intentions for Christianity in his "new world order."  (Sorry I can't quote chapter and verse, which I realize would be useful; but then, if I could cite Hitler chapter and verse, I should be sorrier still.)

As a leader seeking to control an overwhelmingly Christian population, largely through anti-communist propaganda (which lent itself to religious appeals), Hitler authorized statements designed to create the impression that he "stood for Christianity" against the "godless bolsheviks".  That is quite different than saying that he actually "imagined himself standing for Christianity."  This latter proposition appears without basis; rather, there is considerable evidence that he intended to destroy and supplant Christianity with his own religious (or quasi-religious) ideas.

Tom K

In a message dated 10/5/2003 2:31:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> writes:

>Dear Carrol,
>Hitler seemed to have imagined himself standing for Christianity (to
>take an extreme example); does one "honor" that, or is there
>anything at all in what Jesus said and did that puts some limits on
>the term?
>Date sent:              Sun, 5 Oct 2003 13:24:41 -0500
>Send reply to:          "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
>From:                   Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject:                Re: OT or OT? Possible Perspectives
>To:                     [log in to unmask]
>Nancy Gish wrote:
>> Dear Carrol,
>> Excuse me, I think I follow all of this but one point:  what is
>> "Christian" about either Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson?  (except, of
>> course, their own self labeling)
>Christianity, like other cultural and/or ideological practices,
>incorporates radically different and/or antagonistic histories, and one
>needs to honor such in any extended consideration. (The next
>would be more precise had I a better memory for proper names.)
>But were
>one to draw a line from (say) Bishop Romero to Pat Robinson, it
>would be
>difficult, I think, to find a nodal point at which X turned into Not-X
>(and of course there would be raging battles over which direction the line
>was moving in). Hence it seems to me best to define Christianity
>ostensively: It consists of the total mishmash of ideas and attitudes ever
>held by anyone who called her/himself Christian. One can then make
>distinctions (or allow for battles) within that territory.
>> Oh yes, and it is two words:  Waste Land.  In this case, I do not
>> think it is pedantry but genuinely different implacations.
>I agree. In fact, it's rather intriguing to play around with the
>different stresses in speaking (silently) the two phrases, "the waste
>land" and "the wasteland."