Top Menu

Third Reich Christendom: Church Anti-Semitism and Dejudaizing Jesus

Original guest piece submitted by Benjamin Taghov

As has been highlighted on Loonwatch, the radical anti-muslim vanguard, and specifically Pamela Geller, has been mouthing the idea of an unmistakable joinder between the ideology of National Socialism, coined by Adolf Hitler, and Islam. She has campaigned the notion that Hitler himself was spiritized by Islam and that the Muslim faith was used as an inspirational take-off point for the Nazi extermination program. According to her, the genocidal insanity of Hitler was strategically interlaced with the genocide of the Armenians. And as that may be true, Hitler also said that he was genuinely inspired by and admired the extermination of the Native Americans.

Hitler’s concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies in English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for Native Americans in the wild west; to his inner circle he often praised the efficiency of America’s extermination – by starvation and uneven combat – of the “red savages” who could not be tamed by captivity.[1]

Genocide at the hands of early Christian Americans supposedly stained the mind of Hitler. He had found a palpable source of inspiration for his extirpational plans. As far as Christianity is concerned though, Hitler did not accredit himself any particular Christian denomination. On the contrary, he found himself outside the fold of Christianity.

When Germany officially came under Nazi rule, the church found itself in a desperate need to redefine itself. In 1939, Protestant theologians, clergymen and other influencial characters within the Christian movement, as well as regular old congregants, joined forces to auspicate the grand opening of the Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Church Life. The advanced objectives were both political and theological in nature. Prof. Susannah Heschel, in her critically acclaimed work, The Aryan Jesus, says that:

Seeking to create a dejudaized church for Germany that was in the process of ridding Europe of all Jews, it developed new biblical interpretations and liturgical materials. In the six years of its existence, as the Nazi regime carried out its genocide of the Jews, the Institute redefined Christianity as a Germanic religion whose founder, Jesus, was no Jew but rather had fought valiantly to destroy Judaism, falling as victim to that struggle. Germans were now called upon to be the victors in Jesus’s own struggle against the Jews, who were said to be seeking Germany’s destruction.[2]

The institute gained a lot of success in winning support for its radical agenda from a broad spectrum of ecclesiastical representatives and scholars, who shared or came to share, a volition to weed out the very Judaic vertebra of Christian history and origins. The church under Nazi rule was however not homogeneous. Some adherents of Christian faith felt that the Tanakh should be pooh-poohed or completely expunged from the scripture since the Old Testament was regarded as a Jewish book. Others proposed that the opponents had failed at realizing that the Old Testament in all actuality was anti-Jewish in essence; that the prophets were at constant war with Israel’s sinful ways. By unreading the Bible’s Jewish core text, they suggested that it should be preserved as proof that the Jews were a violent enemy.

However serious the intrafaith quarrel seemed, none of them were in opposition to the Nazi regime. They were all outspokenly anti-Semitic and the rivalry was only preferably based on theological issues: on the one side for example, there were Christians who accepted baptism as a way to dejudaize the Jewish community, and the counterpart of the inter-religious fued – a majority assemblage – who did not regard the Jews as spiritually equal and therefore, always, unfit for Christian faith. As a rule, rather than as an exception, this was the status of Germanic Christendom. There were no real schismatic ”bail-outs”. Alternative views and large-scale opposition to the rabid racism of the church were almost unherad of. Gailus, in his Protestantimus und Nationalsozialismus, accentuates this and asseverates the low percentage of withdrawals from the church.

Without any doubt, one main reason for the Nazi regime’s success, was due to anti-Semitism. Other areas were left underachieved. Hitler and his minions did not reach their desiderated goals, neither militarily nor politically. The Nazi regime did nonetheless exploit the church’s prevailing anti-Semitic interpretations of the New Testament. The anti-Semitic resonance found its way through the church. Susannah Heschel explains why:

…its success can be credited in large measure to the unrelenting anti-Jewish Christian theological discourse that linked Nazi propaganda with the traditions and moral authority of the churches. That link was proclaimed with enthusiasm by Nazi Christians: ‘In the Nazi treatment of the Jews and its ideological stance, Luthers intentions, after centuries, are being fulfilled'[3]

As she also notes, Uriel Tal clearly demonstrates that anti-Semitism within Christianity was not a new phenomenon. He argues that it was utterly owing to Christian anti-Judaism for its success. He writes:

…it was not the economic crises that brought about this new political, racial anti-religious antisemitism, but completely the reverse, it was precisely the anti-Christian and antireligious ideology of racial antisemitism which hampered the first antisemitic parties in their efforts to utilize the economic crisis for their political development. . . [because] what still attracted the masses was the classical, traditional Christian anti-Judaism, however adapted it may have become to the new economic conditions.[4]

As a matter of fact, it can be stated that whatever the seriousness of the inter-religious dialogues, they ultimately came together, putting their frictions aside, due to their shared anti-Semitic attitudes. The church’s willingness to steward the neo-pagan Nazi rulers and conversely their adopted and appropriated Nazi rhetoric, combined with their volition to recognize Nazi symbolism, is what finally made Christendom a tolerable contestant from a Nazi standpoint. Hitler knew that he had to appeal to a Christian audience and thus his phraseology was painstakingly calculated. He delicately drew on Christian spirituality and was quoted saying that:

St. Paul transformed a local movement of Aryan opposition to Jewry into a super-temporal religion, which postulates the equality of all men…[causing] the death of the Roman empire. [5]

Christianity could not be rejected. The Nazi ideologists felt that a sudden forfeiture of Christianity would in fact offend the moral of Germans. Since the anti-Semitism of Germanic Christianity was utilized as a tool of propaganda, it became the basis for the Nazi party to lean on when appealing to the masses. Nazi ideologists exploited Christianity by colonizing and usurping its theology and its anti-Semitism, for self-fulfilling purposes. The Nazi party integrated key elements of Christian theology with its own ideology. In that way they figured they could boost the quantity of supporters, but they also argued that they needed to bolster their message with a cohesive resonance of Christian tradition, inasmuch as the teachings of the faith had been shaping European culture and thought for thousands of years.

As for liability, the church maintained their guiltlessness. In the aftermath, those people who participated in propagating an anti-Jewish message by disseminating the Christian outlook, justified it by waving the “non-complicity-card” in the actual mass murders. And here it gets really interesting. Firstly, the church propagated anti-Semitism during a time when Jews were being dissociated from the rest of the population. Secondly, they were being rounded up and killed. That is tantamount to giving the executors the go ahead. By suggesting genocide, or by agitating its exigency, they were compliant in murdering them off from a far. Heschel goes on fitting them with the term ‘desk murderers’, implying that they were culpable in promoting genocide from behind their pulpits.

Paralleling the German church to a contemporary context: this is exactly what Geller and Spencer are doing. The German Christians hid their Nazi anti-Semitism beneath the cloak of religion. Geller and Spencer are doing the same thing when they are hiding their true agendas behind a cloak of “civil rights activism.”

They can disassociate themselves from instigating hate all they want. But the fact of the matter is that they are propagating an ideology of hate. Consider for a moment if Geller went back in time with her desktop computer. She would sit there with a warm cup of tea and a cozy felt wrapped around her legs, indulging in and spreading hate and rationale for the dissociation of the Jewish people. Switch from “Islam and Muslims” to “Judaism and Jews” and she would be part of the the German hate-machinery of intellectuals who metaphrased the Nazi ideology into Christian theology: giving Nazism a religious significance by transforming the message into a seizable spiritual discourse. Like whitewashed tombs on the outside, but putrefactively dead inside. That is the true nature of charismatic hate demagogues.

The church and the Nazi movement envisaged their task as an act of self-defence. The Jews were regarded as violent enemies of the state: their agenda could not allow them to ever assimilate into society and they would never submit fully to German law.

…Institute statements regarding Jews and Judaism were mirrors, in Christianized language, of the official propaganda issued by the Reich during the course of the Holocaust: Jews were the aggressive enemies of Germans and Germany was fighting a defensive war against them. Even as the Nazis carried out the extermination of the European Jews, their propaganda argued that it was the Jews who were plotting to murder the Germans. [6]

The rationalization and the language of the Nazis are comparatively similar to that of the vanguard of Internet Islamophobia. With statements such as “the only good Muslim is a bad Muslim” (meaning that a muslim has to kill or maim, or by the use of creeping Jihad, overthrow the ruling apparatus and it’s majority population) they suggest that the West is in dire need to protect itself. It is, so they claim, an act of self-defence. A minority population in Europe and the United States, supposedly in a state of violent or passive aggressive opposition to the West: a Clash of Civilizations.

Furthermore, in terms of the machination of genocide, several high officials within the church actually furthered the notion of terminating Jewish life. A few months after the Nuremburg Laws were enacted, a group of representatives from German churches gathered in Dresden to discuss the merging of the church body. During this meeting, at that time the head of the Thuringian Ministry of Education, and later in 1939, approximately 3 years after the meeting in Dresden, the figurehead of the Institute, stated the following:

…In Christian life, the heart has to be disposed toward the Jew, and that’s how it has to be. As a Christian, I can, I must, and I ought always to have or to find a bridge to the Jew in my heart. But as a Christian, I also have to follow the laws of the nation [Volk], which are often presented in a very cruel way, so that again I am brought into the harshest of conflicts with ‘Thou shalt not kill the Jew’ because he too is a child of the eternal Father, I am able to know as well that I have to kill him, I have to shoot him, and I can only do that if I am permitted to say: Christ. [7]

Siegfried Leffler not only spoke of killing the Jews as early as in 1936, a few years prior to it actually being done, but the people attending the meeting did not at any time voice any discontent to what was being said. It was as if it had already become a customary discourse within German Christian congregations. The discussion continued as if the murder of Jews in the name of Christ was an acceptable iniquity. In other words, the murder of Jews was considered an option in dealing with the elimination of Jewish influence on German life and church.

Apologetics within the contemporary church downplay the role of the Christian movement, as it is an awkward moment in history, reminiscent of past atrocities committed in the name of Christ. But the documented history of the church’s influence on Nazi Germany and its crucial effect on public opinion, is so articulate that any attempt at brushing it off as an isolated event, or by claiming that the Protestant Christian movement were actually motivated by sectarian currents, in and by itself becomes inofficious. A stillborn attempt at trying to explain away history. The German Christian movement was a faction within the Protestant church, following in the footsteps of its founder, Martin Luther. They always connected their ideology and approach to the ‘Jewish question’ to him and expressly voiced that their agenda was an attempt to pick up where Luther had left off.

This makes Geller and her co-agitators brutally incoherent. They take something, that may very well be true, out of its context: by picking and choosing events in history, that strengthen their pre-determined panorama of hate. In point of fact, by drawing her conclusions, she is trying desperately to downplay or fully hide, the Christian interspersion on Nazi thought.

Hitler may have observed the game-plan of the Young Turks. This does not mean that Hitler was anymore influenced by Islam than he was by Christianity. As was mentioned at the top, Hitler did draw from the Christian American holocaust of Native Americans, and he did reference Christian spirituality in his speeches. Does that mean that he was Christian or that he was motivated by Christian theology? No, it doesn’t. It means that Hitler was looking for a way to streamline his operational murder and slave camps.

He was not ideologically influenced by any of the examples he was drawing on, he was just trying to find a way to advance his efforts. But that is obviously something that eludes Geller’s ratiocination. It does however show that religion, when hijacked, can get ugly. The German Christian movement is surpassingly good at proving this point.

[1] Adolph Hitler: The Definitive Biography, John Toland. p.202

[2] The Aryan Jesus, p.6

[3] Ibid, p.7

[4] Religious and Anti-Religious Roots of Modern Antisemitism, p.177

[5] The Aryan Jesus, p.8

[6] The Aryan Jesus, p.14

[7] ThHStA A 1400, 239, February 24-25, 1936. Attending the meeting: Paul Althaus, Martin Doerne, Erich Fascher, Wolf Meyer-Erlach, Dedo Müller, pastors and senior ministers; Leffler, Leutheuser, Hugo Hahn, The Aryan Jesus, p10.

*Disclaimer: We are by no means endorsing the idea that Christianity is an anti-Semitic religion. We are only exploring the Islamophobic claim that Hitler was inspired by Islam, as well as the relationship between the Third Reich and the German Christian Church.

Benjamin Taghiov is the nom de plum of a Swedish author, specializing in the fields of Political Science and Oriental studies.  A long time admirer of Loonwatch, he plans on contributing more articles in the future.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Benjamin Taghiov

    @Solid Snake:

    Thanks mate. I’m working on a piece right now actually. I don’t know if it’s Loonwatch material yet, but we’ll se eventually.

  • Benjamin Taghiov

    @Saladin

    I know they were secular. And of course I could’ve interjected that information into the article. But I didn’t because I don’t think it was essential to the point I was making. Even if Hitler was drawing from genocides transacted by muslim hands, he wasn’t at all influenced by the Islamic ideology. If he was, then by far, he was more influenced by the Christian ideology.

  • Saladin

    @Guest
    The Young Turks movement was secular I think that needs to be pointed out.

    @twiceasnice

    Even Hamas has on their website the Protocols.
    Scott Atran has pointed out they do not believe in the document but use it as apolitical tool.

  • SKhan

    @twiceasnice:

    “There is no denying the connection Muslims played in WW2. There was a Bosnian Nazi SS Division and the Mufti of Jerusalem was a friend and ally of Hitler and had plan for a Final Solution for Jews in the Middle East.”

    How many times have we been over this? The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem + Bosnian SS unit? You make no mention of the hundreds of Albanian and Bosnian Muslims, and other European Muslims who fought against the Nazis. You make no mention of the millions of Middle Eastern and Indian Muslims recruited by the British Army to fight Hitler. Also, Islam is not inherently anti-semetic. The Grand Mufti’s ***** up response to the problem was because of the violent actions of Israeli settlers. I am not justifying what the Mufti did, I condemn his actions. I am simply pointing out that Islam is not the cause of his behavior, politics is.

    “This is not to mention the blatant Jew hate so prevelant throughout the Arab/Muslim world with books like the Protocols of The Learned Elders of Zion featuring as best sellers in many Arab Muslim countries, it shown on the television and books like Mein Kampf topping the best sellers list.”

    Ok, first of all, relations between Muslims and Jews in the Middle East were considerably warmer than the treatment of Jews in the West, before the creation of the State of Israel. I am not justifying anti-semetism, I am simply pointing out that because there was a time when such hatred didn’t exist, it shows that Islam is not inherently anti-semetic, so not all Muslims are to blame. Also, where is your proof that the Protocols and Mein Kampf are best sellers in “many Arab Muslim countries”?

    “Even Hamas has on their website the Protocols.”

    Does Hamas represent all Muslims? How many times do us Muslims have to condemn Hamas? The Palestinian Authority and Fatah have repeatedly condemned Hamas and oppose its terrorist ideology with moderate secularism.

    “Jew hate veiled by anti-Zionism is part of the mainstream Muslim narrative. Of course this comment will never see the light of day but I expect nothing less from you apologists.”

    First of all, you speak as though you can read Muslims’ minds and know all of them secretly hate Jews. If anti-Zionism is so anti-semetic, then why do Jews such as Noam Chomsky oppose the foreign policy of the State of Israel? With your logic, we could equate criticism of the Saudi regime to hating all Muslims and all Arabs (many Muslims and Arabs criticize the Saudi regime). You whine about how your comments will not be posted and how LW is supposedly apologetics. First of all, your comment was posted. In fact, I have seen your annoying, bigoted comments posted at the bottom of other LW articles as well, so don’t whine about LW censoring people (interesting fact, one of the only people that LW HAS ever censored WAS an anti-semite). Lastly, you accuse LW of being apologetics. It is not. An apologist would be someone out to prove his religion is true and all others are totally false. LW does not do so. Many LWriters are non-Muslim, and Danios has expressed that he doesn’t favor one religion over another, and that he doesn’t believe that Islam is perfect. He has also warned Muslims against using his articles to attack other faiths, far from what an apologist would do.

  • HGG

    “There is no denying the connection Muslims played in WW2.”

    Who is denying it?

    What people are denying, at least, rational people, is Geller’s claims that Islam somehow was a major influence to Hitler. What this article shows is that Hitler drew inspiration from several sources for his crimes and if we’re assigning blame, Christianity doesn’t come away unscathed.

    ” Of course this comment will never see the light of day but I expect nothing less from you apologists.”

    And yet, here it is.

  • Géji

    “Yeah, if you’re antisemitic, comparing Zionism to Nazism is a complete laugh riot.”

    – Funny how you were so quick to exploit the baseless slur of “antisemitic” used only by Zionism atrocity apologists to discredit of course anyone who oppose Zionism cruelty, and try make it a Judaism business, lol, we know the tune!.

    – BTW, would it be a – Okey!- with you, if ethnically cleansed, starved, and oppressed Palestinians use the comparaison of the evil treatment they suffer at the hand of Zionism, with the evil treatment the other community suffered at the hand of Nazism?? Or of course since you’re NOT the one suffering at the hand of Zionism for almost 70 years, you will kindly “measure” the “degree” of their sufferance and despair?

  • Pingback: “We’re at War!” — And We Have Been Since 1776: 214 Years of American War-Making | Spencer Watch()

  • ron paul

    Dear EricRC
    RE: “But Dr. Avalos is asking them to take seriously his claim that
    one of the men they think was among the most evil men of all time acted in a way that “was very consistent with what he [Hitler] saw Jesus…”

    Yes, I am asking them to take this seriously because you cannot
    explain why most German Christians who supported Hitler saw no problem between what Hitler was asking of them and what Jesus taught. You cannot explain why Jesus’ words in John 8:44 were posted on Nazi road signs unless the Nazis thought most German Christians would accept that Nazism and Jesus’ ethics were compatible.

    If many Americans think that Nazism and Jesus’ ethics were
    incompatible, it is because they are not informed about most of
    Christian history. After all, throughout most of Christian history,
    those persecuting heretics and Jews did so in the name of Jesus.

    If you listen to the broadcast, you will see that Luther did too. His
    first point says:

    “First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and
    cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again
    see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord
    and Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing,
    blaspheming of his son and of his Christians….”

    Note that Luther says that this is to be done in honor “of our Lord
    and Christendom.” So what makes you think the most Christians
    historically have not thought that killing and burning Jews was
    compatible with Jesus’ words?

    The fact is that what many modern American Christians think about
    Jesus’ ethics MAY NOT BE representative of what many, or most,
    Christians in the last 2000 years have thought about Jesus’ ethics
    towards Jews and toward those who disagreed with him.

    You might also read Susannah Heschel, The Aryan Jesus: Christian
    Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany (Princeton University Press,2008).

    In my book, Fighting Words, I have discussed at length the attempts of modern scholars to whitewash Jesus’ ethics, which, among other things, called for burning eternally those who did not agree with his religion (see Matthew 25:41ff) and for the transfer of allegiance from the biological family to him (Luke 14:26ff). Those actions are perfectly
    compatible with the desires of a dictator or cult leader.

    In my forthcoming book on slavery, I discuss how Jesus is seen as
    completely benign because most scholars, even seemingly secular ones, are still seeing Jesus through Christian eyes

    But what Jesus advocates in Matthew 25:41ff is ETERNAL TORTURE in a fiery lake of fire. If Hitler wanted your torture to last until you
    died, Jesus is advocating that you be tortured BEYOND DEATH and FOR ETERNITY. So can you explain to me how Jesus’ ethics are better in such a case?

  • twiceasnice

    There is no denying the connection Muslims played in WW2. There was a Bosnian Nazi SS Division and the Mufti of Jerusalem was a friend and ally of Hitler and had plan for a Final Solution for Jews in the Middle East.

    This is not to mention the blatant Jew hate so prevelant throughout the Arab/Muslim world with books like the Protocols of The Learned Elders of Zion featuring as best sellers in many Arab Muslim countries, it shown on the television and books like Mein Kampf topping the best sellers list.

    Even Hamas has on their website the Protocols.

    Jew hate veiled by anti-Zionism is part of the mainstream Muslim narrative. Of course this comment will never see the light of day but I expect nothing less from you apologists.

  • HGG

    “Funny how if I equate Zionsim to Nazism,”

    Yeah, if you’re antisemitic, comparing Zionism to Nazism is a complete laugh riot.

    “We cant let this hatred fester no further, I am not one who will let this happen again to ANYONE, and for ANY REASON.”

    Unless, of course, they fail to conform to whatever the hell you believe “Good mores” are, then, they should be wiped from the face of this earth.

    I give you props, Nur Alia, you’re amazingly good at disguising hatred as rationality.

  • Solid Snake

    Great article Benjamin, we hope to see more of your work on Loonwatch.

  • Farlowe

    I dont deny Hitler and the Nazis were mainly Christian in culture and religion. Christianity was not the only factor affecting the behaviour of the Nazis. See “Occult Roots of the Third Reich” by Professor Goodrick-Clarke of Exeter.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Goodrick-Clarke

  • Faisal Rathor

    Even if we accord with these civil rights activists that Islam would have influenced over Hitler and his regime (huge number of people), one has to admit that Islam has such potential to power over minds regardless of bad (as claimed) or good (real ethic of Islam).

  • Géji

    It’s well known that Christian apologists always try to distance Christianity from the genocide of 6 million Jews by Nazi Germany, maybe that’s understandable, but sometimes their arguments are so ridiculous it invites laughter, they can’t erase the fact that the great majority of Nazis and their leaders were Christians, nor the fact that Nazis used Christianity to rally the Christian majority country behind their sadistic cause, nor the fact that at that time many Churches in Germany due to anti-semitism and nationalism had a big role in it by propagating and supporting that cause, there is no way of escaping those facts, and no matter how much arguments Christian apologists offer, they can’t rewrite history. But there is also great similarities between what those Churches at the time of Nazi-Germany did, and what most Churches of Evangelical Christianity (mainly those in the US) are doing today when it come to Islam/Muslims.

    ——————-

    @Farlowe, your whole post up there breathe a pathetic attempt and the typical nonsense rubbish Euro-Centric Christians in denial offers when they are at their most desperate effort to pathetically try refuting the solid facts that the genocide of 6 million Jews not only happened under Europe Christianity, but committed by a majority Christian Nazis.

    1- Felix Kersten, Himmler’s personal masseur, claimed that Himmler had told him that he always carried with him a copy of the Bhagavad Gita, because it relieved him of guilt about implementing the Final Solution, but Kersten is NOT considered a reliable source,

    2- He also claimed that he used his position to aid people persecuted by Nazi Germany, although whether his actions were as decisive as Kersten claimed in his memoirs is not readily verifiable from other source.

  • Zakariya Ali Sher

    @ Juan4: Actually, its more complicated than that. Indian culture has used both right and left facing swastikas at various points in history and in varying contexts. The indigenous Bon religion of Tibet, and at least some schools of Himalayan Vajrayana (Tantric) Buddhism, seem to show a preference for counter-clockwise swastikas.

    Hitler was an opportunistic git, but some Nazis and other groups in Germany were interested in Asian religion, at least partly because it wad ‘exotic’ and ‘fashionable,’ but also because linguistics and racial theory put Indians in the same category as Europeans. In truth, Indians and Persians were the REAL Aryans in the first place.

    So yes, the Nazis coopted many symbols and terms from Hinduism/Buddhism (albeit while discarding or ignoring the elements that didn’t appeal to them; a task made easier by the “foreign” nature of these religions). But remember that the Swastika is a far older and more universal symbol, showing up in Native American, Basque and even Germanic art too

  • Nur Alia

    In other words, Hitler and his evil regime used distorted Christian rhetoric and propaganda to turn good people against Jews.

    Funny how if I equate Zionsim to Nazism, and try to seperate the evil, bigoted propaganda of hate from the people the dispicable less than human beings justify thier existance by exploiting…I am told not to be so harsh.

    However, it is time we stand against hatred and bigotry, and not let the evil ones hide behind words and just actions and people. Let these hatemongers not be harboured by timidity. Bring these people out, and undress them publicly until they surrender to good morals, or else be wiped from the face of this earth.

    We cant let this hatred fester no further, I am not one who will let this happen again to ANYONE, and for ANY REASON.

  • mindy1

    Interesting

  • khan4

    The Nazi symbol of their flags is a backwards version of the Indian swastika. Maybe he was inspired by Hindus. LOL

    Why does El-Gamal have to apologize for failing to include 9/11 families in a planning of a building? Do you know how stupid that is? I have a friend who is a hijack survivor. Should he be included in the planning and designing of every plane from that point on in his life?

  • Benjamin Taghiov

    Thank you guys.

    I am glad you appreciate it.

  • JD

    Islamic Center Park51 Cannot Be Evicted, But Must Pay Back Rent
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/29/islamic-center-park51-can_n_1119259.html?ref=islam

    A Manhattan Judge has blocked Con Edison from evicting Park51, the proposed Islamic Center in Lower Manhattan. The center however will need to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in back rent, as well as begin paying an increased rent of $25,875 per month, up from the $2,750 currently paid.

    Until both sides settle on an exact figure to how much is owed in back rent, the center will be protected from eviction.

    As part owner of the site, Con Edison entered a dispute with the developers earlier this year by claiming that rent for the property had risen and therefore developers owed $1.7 million in back rent dating back to 2008.

    The developers led by Sharif El-Gamal refuted the figure and said that the center owed at most $880,000. A consequent lawsuit followed with El-Gamal stating his belief that the electric company might be “bowing to political pressure” that had mounted over the controversial location.

    Con Edison answered by saying “We have been among the many parties that have defended the tenant’s right to buy the property and develop it.”

    Since its inception, Park51 has been plagued with troubles, most notably from critics upset over the close proximity of the Islamic Center to ground zero.

    Last year, Pastor Terry Jones ignited controversy by threatening to burn a Quran if the center did not change its location. Jones later canceled and was internationally lambasted for his “offending” stunt.

    Despite the controversy, Park51 held its first exhibit back in September without any problems. El-Gamal also apologized for failing to include the families of the September 11th attacks in the planning of Park51 from the start.

  • Farlowe

    Himmler, raised as a Christian, grew to dislike Christianity intensely.

    “This Christendom, this greatest pestilence which could have befallen us in history which has weakened us for every conflict, we must finish with”.

    He became more interested in eastern metaphysics, read Bhagavad Gita thoroughly and kept a notebook of quotations.

    I found only one reference to the Koran in Peter Padfield’s masterful biography of Himmler:

    “Kersten (his masseur) found him in agony with stomach cramps with the Koran lying by his bedside”. That was in 1944.

  • Benjamin, excellent, it’s nice to hear a Euro Scandinavian voice.

    Chrisitianity today at least in Europe, has changed and modified it’s views from when it used to demonise Jews. Though it did in the past. It was bigoted against Islam too.

    There were many good Christians (in Denmark for example) who helped save Jews during the WW2 era. As did the Muslim majority country Albania, the only Muslim country in Europe at that time.

    Of course Pam Geller won’t mention that.

    Mankind can and will use and distort religion to fit into what he/she wants it to be. That is nothing new.

    Hopefully, humanity will nevergo down that route. It was with that hope that all countries signed up to a UN charter. To stop genocide, bigotry, persecution, slavery, and other ills, and ensure equality and rights for all.

  • TheBig_T

    Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Church Life.

    replace Jewish with Islamic and German with American and you have Jihadwatch in a nutshell

  • Al

    Interesting

  • Dan5

    Interesting read

Powered by Loon Watchers