Godwin's law states "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." Part of its tradition is that whoever makes such a comparison has lost the debate. With that in mind, here goes.
Ratzinger's latest interfaith overture included a few token agnostics this time, but he couldn't resist bashing atheists in the process. A believer attacking atheism isn't particularly interesting; happens all the time. What amused me about it was his invocation of Nazi Germany as a consequence of atheism.
The pope should know better, from personal experience.
The horrors of the concentration camps reveal with utter clarity the consequences of God’s absence.
Ratzinger leaves no possibility of mistaking his intent here, following up his attack on "the denial of god" by referring to his example from Nazi Germany as "state-imposed atheism."
The pope's already publicized his experiences with the Hitler Youth, being drafted into it, resisting the Nazis in such ways as he could, until he deserted near the end of the war. He tells a nice story about catholic faith as resistance to Nazism, in support of his idea that violence is not what the 'true' religion is about. The problem he and others tend to run into is a lack of evidential support.
Max Fiedler, 77, said he also was compelled to join the Hitler Youth when the Nazis took over the Catholic youth group he was in and merged it into their organization.
Ah. So the Nazis were able to co-opt Catholic organizations and merge with them.
[Translation of Nazi belt buckle: God with us]
The comparison of atheism with Nazism -- blaming Hitler on atheists, or on Darwin, or evolution -- is a tired, old argument frequently invoked by xians against the skeptic. Examples of it are plentiful. Just the other day on Pharyngula, PZ Myers documented it popping up again. The upcoming book he mentions, a study of 'the Nazis' Christian Reich,' should be an interesting read. It comes as no surprise to me that even the pope would feel free to say such a thing, even as he seeks to court some agnostics:
In addition to the two phenomena of religion and anti-religion, a further basic orientation is found in the growing world of agnosticism: people to whom the gift of faith has not been given, but who are nevertheless on the lookout for truth, searching for God.
Such people do not simply assert: "There is no God". They suffer from his absence and yet are inwardly making their way towards him, inasmuch as they seek truth and goodness.
Such flattery, well, it may get him somewhere with a few of them. Once the meaning of the term is mangled into suffering god-seekers wishing they could just find a god, anyway. When presented with a more technical, historical definition, technically I could call myself an agnostic; truth claims about god-concepts seem unknowable, credible evidence in support of them seems an impossibility.
Observation of believers, however, does not lead me to see any special 'suffering' that I go through as a consequence of lacking their faith, however. The only crisis of faith I ever had was in losing it -- when the lack of evidence and the contradictions of bible-based gods became clear, and irreconcilable to me. The only suffering I endured was from cognitive dissonance.
Surrounded by believers as he is, I'm sure the pope will never be confronted with such cognitive dissonance over 'godless Nazism'. I don't think anyone would dare to point out that belt buckle to him, or that Hitler was a nominal catholic who never left the church (or got kicked out, for that matter). It is unfortunate that Hitler seems to have found the religion useful. And contrary to Ratzinger's tall tale, this was not about eradicating faith, but replacing it.
Hitler articulated his view on the relationship between religion and national identity as, "We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany".[304]