New York Times Op-ed: Let’s Get Rid of God

The establishment purpose and goal of destroying the idea of God is to replace God with themselves. So that man will ever only fear the tyranny of man. To eliminate any belief of transcendence after death of the mortal vessel. By doing so, the ruling body, be it corrupt government, monarch or warlord becomes God, the only thing to fear. To remove any motivation to resist or fight the power, because doing so will lead to death and the idea that death is the worst possible outcome of existence.

Nevermind that death is the outcome to living. The communist agents on the NYT editorial board just want to help their authoritarian masters remove all resistance by trying to dismiss the idea of God.

Someone should really burn that building down, and any buildings associated with the Times anywhere in the conus. This should have happened after they bragged about their cabal stealing the election in a conspiracy. But anytime is a good time.

Better late than never.

God fearing people are the ones who fight the best, for they fear not any mortal enemy nor their instruments of destruction and mayhem. It is this strength which the cabal wants to eliminate so nobody with such conviction ever challenges their own power.

a reply to: worldstarcountry



But we already knew this.

God told man to commit genocide, rape and murder.

Why would you want kids worshiping that?

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
God told man to commit genocide, rape and murder.

Why would you want kids worshiping that?

instead of diverting a thread maybe you could ask that question in the Religious section. I'm sure some of us would be happy to discuss this.

I'm an absolute atheist but this is appalling to me. If people want to believe in God or gods, they should be allowed to. So long as they cause no harm to others. Something that until now, has not happened.

a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

That's free will.

God didn't tell 'em a thing, they came to that decision all on their own.

As for this writers opinion? Good luck with that, good sir. Hope you packed a lunch, 'cause it's gonna be a long day.

originally posted by: face23785
You know who else wanted to eliminate belief in God?

Stalin and Hitler.

Consider the facts behind Hitler’s rise to power in Germany​—ugly facts that some would like to expunge from the history books. In May 1924 the Nazi Party held 32 seats in the German Reichstag. By May 1928 these had dwindled to 12 seats. However, the Great Depression engulfed the world in 1930; riding in its wake, the Nazis made a remarkable recovery, gaining 230 out of 608 seats in the German elections of July 1932. Soon after, former chancellor Franz von Papen, a Papal Knight, came to the Nazis’ aid. According to historians, von Papen envisioned a new Holy Roman Empire. His own short tenure as chancellor had been a failure, so now he hoped to gain power through the Nazis. By January 1933, he had mustered support for Hitler from the industrial barons, and through wily intrigues he ensured that Hitler became Germany’s chancellor on January 30, 1933. He himself was made vice-chancellor and was used by Hitler to win the support of Catholic sections of Germany. Within two months of gaining power, Hitler dissolved parliament, dispatched thousands of opposition leaders to concentration camps, and began an open campaign of oppressing the Jews.

On July 20, 1933, the Vatican’s interest in the rising power of Nazism was displayed when Cardinal Pacelli (who later became Pope Pius XII) signed a concordat in Rome between the Vatican and Nazi Germany. Von Papen signed the document as Hitler’s representative, and Pacelli there conferred on von Papen the high papal decoration of the Grand Cross of the Order of Pius.* In his book Satan in Top Hat, Tibor Koeves writes of this, stating: “The Concordat was a great victory for Hitler. It gave him the first moral support he had received from the outer world, and this from the most exalted source.” The concordat required the Vatican to withdraw its support from Germany’s Catholic Center Party, thus sanctioning Hitler’s one-party “total state.”* Further, its article 14 stated: “The appointments for archbishops, bishops, and the like will be issued only after the governor, installed by the Reich, has duly ascertained that no doubts exist with respect to general political considerations.” By the end of 1933 (proclaimed a “Holy Year” by Pope Pius XI), Vatican support had become a major factor in Hitler’s push for world domination. [1st footnote: William L. Shirer’s historical work The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich states that von Papen was “more responsible than any other individual in Germany for Hitler’s coming to power.” In January 1933 former German chancellor von Schleicher had said of von Papen: “He proved to be the kind of traitor beside whom Judas Iscariot is a saint.”] [2nd footnote: In addressing the College of Mondragone on May 14, 1929, Pope Pius XI said that he would negotiate with the Devil himself if the good of souls required it.]

Though a handful of priests and nuns protested Hitler’s atrocities​—and suffered for it—​the Vatican as well as the Catholic Church and its army of clergy gave either active or tacit support to the Nazi tyranny, which they regarded as a bulwark against the advance of world Communism. Sitting pretty in the Vatican, Pope Pius XII let the Holocaust on the Jews and the cruel persecutions of others proceed uncriticized. It is ironical that Pope John Paul II, on visiting Germany in May 1987, should glorify the anti-Nazi stand of one sincere priest. What were the other thousands of the German clergy doing during Hitler’s reign of terror? A pastoral letter issued by the German Catholic bishops in September 1939 at the outbreak of World War II provides enlightenment on this point. It reads in part: “In this decisive hour we admonish our Catholic soldiers to do their duty in obedience to the Fuehrer and to be ready to sacrifice their whole individuality. We appeal to the Faithful to join in ardent prayers that Divine Providence may lead this war to blessed success.”

Such Catholic diplomacy illustrates the kind of harlotry that religion has engaged in over the past 4,000 years in wooing the political State in order to gain power and advantage. Such religio-political relationships have fostered warfare, persecutions, and human misery on a vast scale.

“And one of the seven angels that had the seven bowls came and spoke with me, saying: ‘Come, I will show you the judgment upon the great harlot who sits on many waters, with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, whereas those who inhabit the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication.’”​—Revelation 17:1, 2.

Babylon the Great (Reasoning From the Scriptures)

Since 1914, two world wars and over a hundred smaller conflicts have spilled an ocean of blood. A century ago, French writer Guy de Maupassant said that “the egg from which wars are hatched” is patriotism, which he called “a kind of religion.” In fact, The Encyclopedia of Religion says that patriotism’s cousin, nationalism, “has become a dominant form of religion in the modern world, preempting a void left by the deterioration of traditional religious values.” (Italics added.) By failing to promote true worship, false religion created the spiritual vacuum into which nationalism was able to pour.

Nowhere was this better illustrated than in Nazi Germany, whose citizens at the beginning of World War II claimed to be 94.4 percent Christian. Of all places, Germany​—birthplace of Protestantism and praised in 1914 by Pope Pius X as home of “the best Catholics in the world”—​should have represented the very best that Christendom had to offer.

Significantly, Catholic Adolf Hitler found readier support among Protestants than among Catholics. Predominantly Protestant districts gave him 20 percent of their votes in the 1930 elections, Catholic districts only 14 percent. And the first absolute majority for the Nazi Party in state elections was in 1932 in Oldenburg, a district 75 percent Protestant.

Apparently, the “void left by the deterioration of traditional religious values” was greater in Protestantism than in Catholicism. Understandably so. Liberalized theology and higher criticism of the Bible were mainly the product of German-speaking Protestant theologians.

Equally significant is what finally solidified lagging Catholic support behind Hitler. German historian Klaus Scholder explains that “by tradition German Catholicism had especially close ties with Rome.” Seeing in Nazism a bulwark against Communism, the Vatican was not averse to using its influence to strengthen Hitler’s hand. “Fundamental decisions shifted more and more to the Curia,” says Scholder, “and in fact Catholicism’s status and future in the Third Reich was finally decided almost solely in Rome.”

The part Christendom played in both world wars led to a severe loss of prestige. As the Concise Dictionary of the Christian World Mission explains: “Non-Christians had before their eyes . . . the evident fact that nations with a thousand years of Christian teaching behind them had failed to control their passions and had set the whole world ablaze for the satisfaction of less than admirable ambitions.”

Of course, religiously motivated wars are nothing new. But in contrast with the past when nations of different religions warred with one another, the 20th century has increasingly found nations of the same religion locked in bitter conflict. The god of nationalism has clearly been able to manipulate the gods of religion. Thus, during World War II, while Catholics and Protestants in Great Britain and the United States were killing Catholics and Protestants in Italy and Germany, Buddhists in Japan were doing the same to their Buddhist brothers in southeast Asia.

Nevertheless, in view of its own bloodstained clothing, Christendom cannot self-righteously shake its finger at others. By advocating, supporting, and at times electing imperfect human governments, professed Christians and non-Christians alike must share responsibility for the blood these governments have shed.

But what kind of religion would put government above God and offer its own members as political sacrifices on the altar of the god of war?

And now regarding your mention of Stalin (next comment)...

originally posted by: face23785
You know who else wanted to eliminate belief in God?

Stalin and Hitler.

By the time Nazi Germany invaded Russia in June 1941, the Soviets had practically annihilated the Russian Orthodox Church. But after the Nazi invasion, the Soviets began to change their attitude toward religion. What prompted this?

Richard Overy, professor of modern history at King’s College, London, explained in his book Russia’s War—Blood Upon the Snow: “Metropolitan Sergei [Sergius], head of the Church, appealed to the faithful on the very day of the German invasion to do everything to bring about victory. He published no fewer than twenty-three epistles in the next two years, calling on his flock to fight for the godless state they lived in.” So, as Overy continued, ‘Stalin allowed religion to flourish again.’

In 1943, Stalin finally agreed to recognize the Orthodox Church by appointing Sergius as its new patriarch. “The Church authorities responded by raising money from the faithful to fund a Soviet armored column,” Overy noted. “Priests and bishops exhorted their congregations to observe the faith, God’s and Stalin’s.”

Describing this period of Russian history, the Russian religious scholar Sergei Ivanenko wrote: ‘The official publication of the Russian Orthodox Church, The Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, praised Stalin as the greatest leader and teacher of all times and nations, sent by God to save the nation from oppression, landowners, and capitalists. It called upon believers to give their last drop of blood in defending the USSR from its enemies and to give their all to build Communism.’

“Highly Valued by the KGB”

Even after World War II ended in 1945, the Orthodox Church remained useful to the Communists. The Soviet Union: The Fifty Years, edited by Harrison Salisbury, revealed how this was so: “With the war’s end, church leaders fell in with the Cold War demands of Stalin’s foreign policy.”

The recent book The Sword and the Shield describes how church leaders served Soviet interests. It explains that Patriarch Alexis I, who had succeeded Sergius as patriarch in 1945, “joined the World Peace Council, the Soviet front organization founded in 1949.” The book also notes that he and Metropolitan Nikolai “were highly valued by the KGB [the Soviet State Security Committee] as agents of influence.”

Remarkably, in 1955, Patriarch Alexis I declared: “The Russian Orthodox Church supports the totally peaceful foreign policy of our government, not because the Church allegedly lacks freedom, but because Soviet policy is just and corresponds to the Christian ideals which the Church preaches.”

In the January 22, 2000, issue of The Guardian of London, England, dissident Orthodox priest Georgi Edelshtein is quoted as saying: “All the bishops were carefully picked so that they would work with the soviet government. All were KGB agents. It is well known that Patriarch Alexy was recruited by the KGB, under the code-name of Drozdov. Today, they are preserving the same politics that they had 20 or 30 years ago.”

A Handmaiden of the Soviet State

Regarding the relationship between the Orthodox Church and the Soviets, Life magazine of September 14, 1959, observed: “Stalin gave some concessions to religion, and the church treated him like a czar. Orthodoxy’s collaboration is ensured by a special government ministry and the Communists have utilized the church ever since as an arm of the Soviet state.”

Matthew Spinka, an authority on Russian church affairs, confirmed the existence of a close Church-State relationship in his 1956 book, The Church in Soviet Russia. “The present Patriarch Alexei,” he wrote, “has deliberately made his Church a tool of the government.” Indeed, the Orthodox Church, in effect, survived by becoming a handmaiden of the State. ‘But is that so reprehensible?’ you may ask. Well, consider how God and Christ view the matter.

Jesus Christ said of his true disciples: “You are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world.” And God’s Word pointedly asks: “Adulteresses, do you not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with God?” (John 15:19; James 4:4) Thus, as the Bible presents it, the church made itself a religious harlot with whom “the kings of the earth committed fornication.” It has shown itself to be part of what the Bible calls “Babylon the Great, the mother of the harlots and of the disgusting things of the earth.”—Revelation 17:1-6.

Church Collaboration With the Soviets

In his 1945 book, Russia Is No Riddle, Edmund Stevens wrote: “The Church took great care not to bite the hand that was now feeding it. It fully realized that in return for the favors bestowed the State expected the Church to give its firm support to the system and to operate within certain limits.”

Stevens went on to explain: “The tradition of centuries as the official State religion was deeply rooted in the Orthodox Church, and it therefore slipped very naturally into its new role of close collaboration with the Soviet Government.”

The Keston Institute thoroughly researched the past collaboration between the Soviets and Alexis II, today’s patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church. Its report concluded: “Aleksi’s collaboration was nothing exceptional—almost all senior leaders of all officially-recognised religious faiths—including the Catholics, Baptists, Adventists, Muslims and Buddhists—were recruited KGB agents. Indeed, the annual report that describes Aleksi’s recruitment also covers numerous other agents, some of them in the Estonian Lutheran Church.”

Taking us back to my remarks on page 1 concerning the claims in the NY Times article):

... In a similar way, we cannot blame God for our suffering, or our choices (when it comes to the subjects God is blamed for in the Times article: “war and violence” and for “oppression and suffering”). The Bible says: “Whatever a person is sowing, this he will also reap.” (Galatians 6:7) Some suffering is brought on by our own choices.

Humans bear a heavy responsibility for suffering (and the other subjects mentioned in the Times article). Much of it has been caused by oppressive governments that have made life hard for the very people they claim to serve.

“Man has dominated man to his harm.”​—ECCLESIASTES 8:9.

More about Babylon the Great (playlist).

Also noteworthy in light of the historical facts mentioned so far:

Religion and the War in Ukraine—What Does the Bible Say?

Consider the following regarding prominent religious leaders and the war in Ukraine:

“The head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, has not said a word against Russian aggression. . . . His Church’s systematic propaganda campaign about Ukraine has been utilised in Putin’s justification for war.”—EUobserver, March 7, 2022.

“Patriarch Kirill . . . has sent his strongest signal yet justifying his country’s invasion of Ukraine—describing the conflict as part of a struggle against sin.”—AP News, March 8, 2022.

“Ukrainian Orthodox Church leader, Metropolitan Epiphanius I of Kyiv, on Monday blessed his people to ‘fight against the Russian invaders’ . . . [He] also stated that killing Russian soldiers isn’t a sin.”—Jerusalem Post, March 16, 2022.

“We [the Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations (UCCRO)] support the Armed Forces of Ukraine and all our defenders, we bless them in their defense of Ukraine from the aggressor, and offer our prayers for them.”—UCCRO * Statement, February 24, 2022. [The UCCRO, or Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations, includes 15 churches representing Orthodox, Greek and Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Evangelical denominations as well as Jews and Muslims.]

What do you think? Should religions that claim to follow Jesus Christ encourage their members to go to war? What does the Bible say?

The history of religion in war

History shows that religion has often condoned, justified, or even promoted war while pretending to work for peace. ...

originally posted by: marg6043
...
Humans think they are in charge of nature, but oh, lord they are soo wrong, we are nothing but animals that can think and no always in the best interest of the human race.

We're not actually animals. We are so much more:

How Unique You Are!

Huge Gulfs—Can Evolution Bridge Them?

...

The Greatest Gulf of All

Physically, man fits the general definition of a mammal. However, one evolutionist stated: “No more tragic mistake could be made than to consider man ‘merely an animal.’ Man is unique; he differs from all other animals in many properties, such as speech, tradition, culture, and an enormously extended period of growth and parental care.”⁠15

What sets man apart from all other creatures on earth is his brain. The information stored in some 100 billion neurons of the human brain would fill about 20 million volumes! The power of abstract thought and of speech sets man far apart from any animal, and the ability to record accumulating knowledge is one of man’s most remarkable characteristics. Use of this knowledge has enabled him to surpass all other living kinds on earth​—even to the point of going to the moon and back. Truly, as one scientist said, man’s brain “is different and immeasurably more complicated than anything else in the known universe.”⁠16

Another feature that makes the gulf between man and animal the greatest one of all is man’s moral and spiritual values, which stem from such qualities as love, justice, wisdom, power, mercy. This is alluded to in Genesis when it says that man is made ‘in the image and likeness of God.’ And it is the gulf between man and animal that is the greatest chasm of all.​—Genesis 1:26.

Thus, vast differences exist between the major divisions of life. Many new structures, programmed instincts and qualities separate them. Is it reasonable to think they could have originated by means of undirected chance happenings? As we have seen, the fossil evidence does not support that view. No fossils can be found to bridge the gaps. As Hoyle and Wickramasinghe say: “Intermediate forms are missing from the fossil record. Now we see why, essentially because there were no intermediate forms.”⁠17 For those whose ears are open to hear, the fossil record is saying: “Special creation.”

...

Is Belief in God Reasonable? (Awake!—2010)

...

Belief Based on Evidence

In order to understand ourselves, should we look down, as it were, to apes and other animals, as evolutionists do? Or should we look up to God for answers? Granted, we have certain things in common with animals. We have to eat, drink, and sleep, for example, and we are able to reproduce. Still, we are unique in many ways. Reason suggests that our distinct human traits stem from a Being higher than ourselves​—that is, from God. The Bible put that thought succinctly, stating that God formed mankind “in his image” morally and spiritually speaking. (Genesis 1:27) Why not contemplate God’s qualities, some of which are recorded at Deuteronomy 32:4; James 3:17, 18; and 1 John 4:7, 8.

Our Creator has given us the “intellectual capacity” to investigate the world around us and to find satisfying answers to our questions. (1 John 5:20) In this regard, physicist and Nobel laureate William D. Phillips wrote: “When I examine the orderliness, understandability, and beauty of the universe, I am led to the conclusion that a higher intelligence designed what I see. My scientific appreciation of the coherence, and the delightful simplicity of physics strengthens my belief in God.”

...

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
...
Someone should really burn that building down, and any buildings associated with the Times anywhere in the conus. ...

That reminds me of Martin Luther's exhortation to so-called Christians:

Certainly, the handiest trick of the propagandist is the use of outright lies. Consider, for example, the lies that Martin Luther wrote in 1543 about the Jews in Europe: “They have poisoned wells, made assassinations, kidnaped children . . . They are venomous, bitter, vindictive, tricky serpents, assassins, and children of the devil who sting and work harm.” His exhortation to so-called Christians? “Set fire to their synagogues or schools . . . Their houses [should] also be razed and destroyed.”

Source: The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

... According to research, men who manifest anger “are more likely to be dead by age 50 than those who do not.”

The American Heart Association similarly states: “Men who experience outbursts of anger have twice the risk of stroke as men who control their tempers.” These warnings are relevant to both sexes.

What advice really works? Notice the similarities between the advice of secular authorities and that of the most widely distributed authority on human relations, the Bible.

Manage Anger—Avoid Rage

Dr. Redford B. Williams states in JAMA: “The simplistic advice, ‘when angry, let it out,’ is unlikely . . . to be of much help. Far more important is to learn how to evaluate your anger and then to manage it.” He suggests asking yourself: “(1) Is this situation important to me? (2) Are my thoughts and feelings appropriate to the objective facts? (3) Is this situation modifiable, so that I don’t have to have this anger?”

Proverbs 14:29; 29:11 “He that is slow to anger is abundant in discernment, but one that is impatient is exalting foolishness. All his spirit is what a stupid one lets out, but he that is wise keeps it calm to the last.”

...

Psalm 37:8 “Let anger alone and leave rage; do not show yourself heated up only to do evil.”

...

Source: What Is Provoking the Age of Rage? (Awake!—2002)

Too many people have too little grasp of the concept of burden of proof. I can't prove there AREN'T purple monkeys living under the surface of Mars, but that's not my burden to do so. That said, I'm agnostic, not outright atheist, but definitely lean toward disbelief in God/gods.

a reply to: whereislogic

Nice copy/paste. That was an awfully long winded way of saying I was right.

Is anyone here unaware of the horrors committed by the Catholic Church? That's a rhetorical question.

This one isn't: As someone who I'm sure likes to think he's well-informed on this subject, you are aware there's a difference between the religion and The Church, right?

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: infolurker

I suspect soon we will not be able to teach our children about Jesus and God because the clown crew will no longer allow it. This is the culture war we are in.

Are people not allowed to have and express an opinion , because that is all this is.

Under god with liberty and justice for all.

His opinion will change nothing.

Nice straw man.

Maybe I missed it, but where in this thread did anyone who is unhappy with this op-ed suggest the author should not have the right to his opinion?

I remember some leftists thinking that disagreeing with their climate change religion should be a crime. I'm not seeing the same calls here though.

The goal of liberalism in a one line summary. When you look at things from that perspective it makes complete sense all the things they do. Why be allied with Islam, who's own beliefs violate the basic tenets of liberalism? Because Islam and Liberals both want rid of Christianity, aka God.

a reply to: infolurker


"New York Times Op-ed: Let’s Get Rid of God"

These regre...progessives never seem to realize how they offend islamists with this kind of talk. The same islamists they always pretend to defend.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
The goal of liberalism in a one line summary. When you look at things from that perspective it makes complete sense all the things they do. Why be allied with Islam, who's own beliefs violate the basic tenets of liberalism? Because Islam and Liberals both want rid of Christianity, aka God.

I'm not sure I'd give them that much credit. The majority of these progressives just defend and ally with Muslims because they see them as "brown" people (even though Islam isn't a race--no one ever said progressives were smart, or informed) and think it makes them virtuous to support them. Radical Islam exploits them as useful idiots.

a reply to: face23785

It's a reminder that both the baptized Roman Catholic, Adolf Hitler, and the atheist, Stalin (and their regimes), used people's belief in God for their own ends or agenda, rather than trying to "eliminate" it as you put it (for the Soviets it may have started out that way, but as my previous comment shows, that all changed around WW II; so to describe or think of it as you put it, is a somewhat incomplete view of the matter, as is drawing a parallel between their modus operandi and that of the Times article and its author).

It is also a reminder that the vast majority who voted Hitler into power, were self-professed Christians (not just Roman Catholics), demonstrating that their own choices caused major suffering to themselves and others, as that ties back into the claims made by the Times article (concerning the discussion regarding fault/blame/who is "responsible" for “war and violence” and for “oppression and suffering”).

If by "The Church" you are referring to "the congregation" of Christians mentioned in the Bible (some translations render this as "the Church"), I'm aware there is a difference with (any) false religion. But perhaps you were thinking of something else. With "the religion", are you referring to Christianity or Christendom (the religions that claim to be Christian, but are promoting a counterfeit form of Christianity)? Or were you referring to the Roman Catholic Church with "the Church"? My first comment also discusses the stance of Protestant denominations within Christendom towards Hitler and showing that rather than trying to elelimate belief in God, Hitler and his regime made cunning use of people's belief in God by collaborating with the various denominations within Christendom for propagandistic purposes. Similar to the modus operandi of Stalin and the Soviets concerning the Russian Orthodox Church and other denoninations mentioned in my 2nd comment. So to make this about just the Roman Catholic Church is a little distracting from that point: how "both the baptized Roman Catholic, Adolf Hitler, and the atheist, Stalin (and their regimes), used people's belief in God for their own ends or agenda, rather than trying to "eliminate" it as you put it". As I put it earlier, plus the caveat concerning the earlier modus operandi of the Soviets that I skipped now, explaining that if you only look at that part of history, you end up with an incomplete view that doesn't quite tell the whole story. The Bible explains that the “understanding heart is one that searches for knowledge”; it is not satisfied with a mere superficial view but seeks to get the full picture. (Pr 15:14)

...

What were the churches doing while all this was taking place? Every Sunday, in harmony with a concordat signed between the Vatican and Germany in 1933, the Catholic clergy prayed for Heaven’s blessing on the German Reich. Did the Protestant clergy make any protest? To the contrary, in 1933 they unitedly pledged unqualified support to the Nazi State. And in 1941, long after World War II was under way, the Protestant Evangelical Church in Mainz, Germany, thanked God for having given the people an Adolf Hitler.

...

Source: Part 1​—Germany

Hitler allegedly encouraged others to embrace the “strong, heroic belief in God in Nature, God in our own people, in our destiny, in our blood.”

During his ruinous term as German chancellor, Hitler received tens of thousands of letters. In 1945, after the Russians occupied the territory surrounding Berlin, many of these letters were taken to Moscow and stored there. Historian Henrik Eberle has examined thousands of such letters in the Moscow archives in order to study who wrote to Hitler and why. Eberle published his conclusions in the book entitled Briefe an Hitler (Letters to Hitler).

“Teachers and students, nuns and priests, the unemployed and top businessmen, admirals and ordinary storm troopers​—they all wrote to Hitler,” says Dr. Eberle. “Some revered him as the born-again Messiah; others saw in him the very essence of wickedness.” Did Hitler receive letters of protest from church officials concerning the outrages perpetrated by the National Socialists, or Nazis? There were some, but such letters were few and far between.

And tying this back into the discussion concerning whose fault all this is (the term "responsible" is used in the Times article):

...

Similarly, Martin Niemoeller, a Protestant church leader who himself had been in a Nazi concentration camp, later confessed: ‘It may be truthfully recalled that Christian churches, throughout the ages, have always consented to bless war, troops, and arms and that they prayed in a very unchristian way for the annihilation of their enemy.’ He admitted: “All this is our fault and our fathers’ fault, but obviously not God’s fault.”

...

Susannah Heschel, a professor of Judaic studies, uncovered church documents proving that the Lutheran clergy were willing, yes anxious, to support Hitler. She said they begged for the privilege of displaying the swastika in their churches. The overwhelming majority of clergymen were not coerced collaborators, her research showed, but were enthusiastic supporters of Hitler and his Aryan ideals.

...

Source: Why the Churches Kept Silent (Awake!—1995)

a reply to: jjkenobi

The God in Islam is the same guy as in Christianity, so why would Islamists want to get rid of him? They probably would prefer if the Christians were all Muslims instead, but that’s hardly the same thing.

a reply to: whereislogic

Yeah my bad I didn't have time to write an entire essay on the topic. Nothing can be boiled down to a few sentences.

Another great revelation.

April 2, 2023

Twitter Owner/CEO ELON MUSK Removes The NEW YORK TIMES from "Legitimate News" status on Twitter, and downgrades the media outlet to "Propaganda" status.

Source: www.foxnews.com...

The Washington Post should be next.

Both Wapo and NYTimes are owned by, and run by, similar anti-America/anti-American scum.