Generally, I consider it counterproductive to make comparisons with the Nazis or with Hitler. Such comparisons call up all the unpleasant and hateful things we have been taught about Hitler and his regime. Bringing up the Nazis makes it difficult for people to think. Nonetheless, we all use the comparison. Because we want others to appreciate the full implications of some problem or another, sometimes we all speak of Hitler and his regime.
Increasingly the counter to a comparison with the Nazis is Godwin’s Law. What is Godwin’s Law? Wikipedia provides a decent definition.
As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. (from here)
Why did the law’s inventor, Mike Godwin, invent his law? Godwin wanted a counter-meme to the Nazi-comparison meme (see here). What is a meme? Well, let’s use Godwin’s definition.
A “meme,” of course, is an idea that functions in a mind the same way a gene or virus functions in the body. And an infectious idea (call it a “viral meme”) may leap from mind to mind, much as viruses leap from body to body. (from here too)
Godwin had decided the labeling of posters or their ideas as “similar to the Nazis” or “Hitler-like” had gotten out of hand. So he invented a counter-meme to discourage the comparison, and it would appear he is to some degree succeeding. Because Godwin’s Law is a simple and pre-packaged argument, it has become increasingly popular. Google “godwin’s law”, and you will get over 200,000 hits.
Nonetheless, Godwin’s Law is not always appropriate. Sometime Hitler/Nazi comparisons are appropriate. As the Wikipedia article notes:
It does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi regime.
Consider again why we make the comparisons.
- The Nazis were a deadly enemy. Hitler started the last great war. The Nazi regime had to be destroyed.
- The Nazis were evil. Our soldiers toured the concentration camps the Nazis created.
Was the destruction of the Nazis the destruction of all evil? We have been taught to hold destruction of the Nazi regime up as something special. Was it? Is it? No and no. What the Nazis did was merely more evil than any of us want to admit humans can be. Think back on human history. Google “human sacrifice”, for example. Is terrorism unique to our day? Isn’t slavery an ancient institution that has only recently become offensive to most Americans? Was organized genocide unique to the Nazis? Has the killing stopped?
Because the Nazis lost, the Allies were able to put Nazi leaders on trial. So much of the evil the Nazis did was carefully revealed and carefully discussed. With the revelations, the destroyers of the Nazi regime, the Greatest Generation, fully appreciated the need for the war. They even took pride in a deed well done. Because they saw and documented this human depravity, we too know of it.
So now when we think of the Nazis, we have no trouble recognizing the evil. We know of the coldblooded efficiency. We know of the indifference they displayed in killing millions. What is evil? Some say it is indifference. Was such indifference new with the Nazis? Was it lost with their demise? Why would we think such a thing? Is it because we live in nation unique in its history?
Most of us take our Christian heritage more seriously than we know. When most nations refuse to acknowledge that a foreigner could be one of them, we struggle with the problem of actively assimilating people from all over the world into our society. In our hearts, we remember a lesson our forebears taught us. When Christ died, he died for all.
Revelation 5:9-10
And they sang a new song:
”You are worthy to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
because you were slain,
and with your blood you purchased men for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation.
You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,
and they will reign on the earth.”
When we go to war, we go having been taught there is no glory in the killing. We know we fight our brothers and our sisters.
We also know that much evil stems from ignorance — willful though it may be. What did Jesus say when he died hanging from a tree?
Luke 23:34
Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.
Not all men have a Christian heritage. Neither do all men hold to the belief that all mankind is sacred to God. Some men are indifferent to the fate of their fellows; they have yet to accept that God made us to love each other. And so some men readily kill and take what they want. Which men? Which nations? That is the question. When we know the answer, we know the appropriate application of Godwin’s Law.
Other Views
Here are some recent applications of Godwin’s Law amongst Virginia bloggers.
Rick Sincere News and Thoughts applies it to international diplomacy and Russia’s assault on Georgia (see here).
The right-wing liberal applies Godwin’s Law to Chinese propaganda (see here).
Raising Kaine uses Godwin’s Law to attack a Glenn Beck as a hatemonger (see here).
The Armchair Generalist uses Godwin’s Law as a tool to ridicule a real general (see here).
There is another reason for mentioning Nazis – the genealogy of ideas.
Nazi Secular Humanism, Communist Secular Humanism, and Liberal/Socialist/Progressive Secular Humanism share the same ideas. They are variations on a theme.
They are the intellectual inheritance of the French Revolution.
They follow Diocletian (I know this pre-French Enlightenment but its there for a reason) – Rousseau-Hegel-Kant-Marx–Darwin-Nietzche-Dewey-Freud- and then branch out to their particulars.
Which is a huge heads up for Americans. Today’s politically correct is tomorrow’s speech police.
Especially, when the root for modern Liberalism is Massachusetts, you see a culture which traded its Puritan understanding of God for a secular worship of the god of ‘self’ , but kept the cultural attributes and attitudes of absolutism, arrogance and ruthlessness.
I think you miss the point of what Godwin’s Law is all about.
As you do note, it has nothing to do with legitimate comparisons to Nazis (e.g., the Serbian Communists’ genocide in the former Yugoslavia, or what Pol Pot did in Cambodia).
What Godwin was talking about was when a person who thinks he is on the losing end of an argument calling his opponent a “Nazi” or a “fascist.”
These terms are used so readily in political discourse that their actual meaning has been lost. “Fascist” has become a synonym for “right-wing” (even though the father of fascism, Mussolini, was a man of the Left) with no understanding of its broad socio-economic-political implications. (Why is “syndicalist” not also used as a term of opprobrium?)
Godwin’s Law applies when someone uses the Nazi/Hitler/fascist analogy as a way to draw attention away from the weakness of his own arguments and to caricature his opponents. It serves a useful purpose.
In education, we often use the Holocaust to advocate critical thinking and learning from history.
As someone who has compared the abject hatred and harassment of immigrants and “illegals” to the rise of Nazi Germany, I’ve taken quite a bit of heat. But as Tom points out, you don’t need genocide to make the comparison. Look at how the Holocaust began.
What was promised to the would-be Nazis? Why did so many blindly accept the role and the beliefs surrounding those roles? If we don’t learn from history, we are bound to repeat it. If we don’t think and learn, we are bound to do worse.
James, I am from MA and grew up in a religious household that stressed reverence and service. I have moved away from my my doctrinal upbringing but never disregard others’ religious belief systems. Quite a bit of what I learned in MA came from Calvinism–the worth of hard work. And I learned to respect and love nature from the Transcendentalists. I learned to love people of all backgrounds because I studied in an immigrant, mill town. I learned that we are all one and part of a God. When one of us hurts, all of us hurt. When our planet hurts, we all hurt. We can try to ignore it, but the hurt is still there.
It’s just as easy to generalize about the “damn liberals” as it is about those “damn conservatives.” If we would all open our minds and hearts for just a moment, we might find we can learn to live together in peace.
“When we go to war, we go having been taught there is no glory in the killing. We know we fight our brothers and our sisters. ” There are too many who do NOT know this. The Civil War is a good example. They were children who went for glory and never came back.
Thank you the comments. They are all quite interesting and thoughtful.
James — I concede that the reference to the genealogy of ideas is correct. Unfortunately, people rarely do look carefully at the conceptional origins of Nazism. At least, I must admit I have not.
Rick – Your observation also points to an error in my presentation, but I do not think it is the one you think you observed. What I neglected to do is explain why I wrote this post. Fortunately, your comment provides a good illustration.
In days gone by, my English teachers use to get after me for being too tenative. I failed to fully develop my thoughts. Instead, I presumed people would understand what I meant. With the wisdom that comes from a few years, I have realized that others besides me share this fault.
Consider your comment. You explained quite well Godwin’s Law, but you never explained what was wrong with my presentation. It seems that you merely presumed I and others would understand.
Similarly, when people use Godwin’s Law, they too often presume that those making a comparison with the Nazis or Hitler are trying to draw attention away the weakness of their argument. While that may be true, the mere assertion of Godwin’s Law does not prove it is true. We still have to show the comparision is invalid. Without such an effort, the assertion of Godwin’s Law ironically becomes an intellectual crutch — much like a comparison involving the Nazis or Hitler without making a logically supporting case.
kgotthardt – As I stated at the beginning, bringing up the Nazis makes it difficult for people to think. Such a hyperbolic comparison certainly will not win you many friends on the other side of the debate. Consider your own reaction to Jame’s last paragraph.
I’m not sure what you think my reaction is to Jame’s last paragraph. I meant to explain my own origins because it sounds like he has met only a few people from MA. I wasn’t upset or anything.
I’m not worried about making friends. No one has to like me or my opinions. But I do worry about slippery slopes and obvious discrimination. I don’t think reflecting on history makes the comparison hyperbolic. No matter how far off you think another holocaust might be, that doesn’t mean we don’t keep an eye out while moving as far away as we can from that possibility.
“…bringing up the Nazis makes it difficult for people to think.”
Now this is something I hadn’t really considered. Good thing to know. If this is the case, though, how do we discuss something as difficult as the Holocaust when we NEED to?
Generally, I think Hitler/Nazi comparisons are useless. What happens is that people spend more time talking about whether or not the comparison is accurate than the thing we are comparing to Hitler and the Nazis.
If we want talk about immigration, then we ought to talk about immigration.
“If we want talk about immigration, then we ought to talk about immigration.”
Agreed. Thus, we shouldn’t be comparing immigrants to cockroaches, calling them “breeders” or harassing them at the 7-11′s. THAT’S the kind of stuff that earns some people the “Neo-Nazi” label, justly or not, depending on your perspective.
Notwithstanding immigration and comparisons, how do we discuss something as difficult as the Holocaust when we NEED to? How do we learn to understand it if not from a contemporary perspective then in some other meaningful way?
kgotthardt – People do not alway use the good sense God gave them. When other people do not use good sense, there is usually very little we can do. We can only control our own actions and try to set a good example.
To discuss the immigration problem, we do not need to anger people with references to the Holocaust. When illegal immigrants are being lured into our nation so employers can exploit them and uncut the wages of American citizens, don’t we already have enough to talk about? The only time we actually need to discuss the Holocaust is when the Holocaust is the subject.
Because history helps to give us some perspective on our own potential moral failings, we all need to be taught history. When we are learning the history of Western Civilization, then we need to learn both about the successes and the failures. We need to learn both about the George Washingtons and the Adolf Hitlers. We need to understand why and how the slaves were freed, and we need to understand why and how the serfs were shackled to the land.
With a good history education, perhaps we feel less tempted to demand the government infringe on the rights of our neighbors. We just might understand how our own uncontrolled greed poses a threat to our own self-interests.
Thanks, Tom. I shall endeavor to avoid language that doesn’t communicate what I intend. No promises of being perfect, however.
KG: I went to grad school #1 in MA. 2 years. Loved living there. My sister went there over 30 years ago, married a local, went native (Lib) and now I have 2 nephews there. Known plenty of Bay Staters.
I’m generalizing about a culture, sub-culture in the U.S. like the two in Virginia 0f Anglican Tidewater and Scot-Irish Frontier. So, I think in big normalized curves. Individuals are always different by degree.
Thus, the point about the ideas changing – and you gave an example of transcendentalism which lead to a unitarian view of Christians which expanded to a meaningless unitarian view of all religions, while maintaining some of the cultural norms – what I called absolutism, arrogance and ruthlessness – in Liberal human secularism.
Of course Liberals and Conservatives can live together. But, only one worldview will be the consensus culture for the American Civilization, Country (GOTUS) and Nation. Which is why we have been in a bonafide Kulturkampf since the 1960s.
” a meaningless unitarian view of all religions”
Are you referring to modern Unitarian Universalists? I hope not because that has never been my own experience.
(BTW, I’ve already broken my attempt at leaving Hitler out of the debates. But at least I admitted it. That probably doesn’t make it right but it’s so appropriate in some cases. It wasn’t an important point anyway if that makes a difference. Dammit. Now I feel guilty.)
kgotthardt – Well, there is only one person fit to hold himself up as a shining example for the rest of us. Everyone else fails to some degree in their attempts to do what they think is right. Sometimes, we can only guess at what is right.
So we must keep trying.
James – I expect you might want to do a post of some sort or reference a website that already makes the same point you are trying to make. Since modern Liberalism has its roots in the northeast, it should be no surprise that Puritans and Liberals have a similar mindset, and I doubt you or I are the first observe that. Nonetheless, the words you have chosen to describe this connection confuses me — and apparently kgotthardt.
Because I never heard anything about it that interested me, I have never seriously investigated unitarianism. The whole idea of people who do not share any creed, dogma or doctrine about the nature of God needing a church struck me as too preposterous.
The way I see Unitarian Universalism is this: it’s globally inter-denominational.
What congregations share are the 7 Principles (found here: http://www.bruu.org/index.php?page=belief#anchor-principles) People with difference doctrines have many things in common. Those commonalities are what hold the church together. It’s very inter-faith. We do have a church so I’m not sure what you mean Tom.
I mean, we worship and gather, so yes, there’s a church.
kgotthardt – I see little to gain in criticizing the religious beliefs of others. I think it better to seek for the Truth, and I believe that most people eventually reach the point where they are desperate to know the Truth. That includes Unitarians.
What is the Truth? The followers of most religions claims that their belief has a better knowledge of the Truth than any other. Whereas Unitarian Universalists seem content to believe there are many roads to God — if He exists. Why beflieve such a thing?
From time to time people get their political beliefs tangled with their religious beliefs. Based on the website you showed me, Unitarian Universalism strikes me as being more of a political movement than a religious movement. I think that is a mistake.
Is there any man who can make a law that deserves more consideration than one God has made? Can the laws of men be written into our hearts the way His laws are?
“Unitarian Universalism strikes me as being more of a political movement than a religious movement”
Really? That sounds odd to me, especially since it is derived from the Congregationalists, a Protestant sect.
While current events and issues do affect the church, I don’t see them being any more politically active than other churches that work for social justice and peace and advocate their beliefs (like the pro-life folks do in Catholic churches). Every major religion has advocacy networks (don’t know if you have ever seen these online but there are lots of them). The church doesn’t take official positions on things unless there is congregational agreement and that rarely happens from what I’ve been told (and from what I have experienced).
Have you ever attended a service? If you haven’t I would love to have you as a guest Tom! : ) No really, it’s not about conversation. I’m not into that. But it does help for churches to at least understand one another, I think.
You might listen to Rev. Nancy’s sermons to get a better idea of some of the services. There are audio links here. http://www.bruu.org/audiosermons/podcastsermons.xml
Anyway, yes, every religion believes they are right to a point but there are degrees of that. I hold the Bible in high regard, but I think there are many paths towards the same truth.
“Whereas Unitarian Universalists seem content to believe there are many roads to God — if He exists. Why beflieve such a thing?”
Because people from all over the world are born into different beliefs, marry people of different beliefs, and respect others with different beliefs. Therefore, the Unitarian Universalist church is a place where global religion can meet on common grounds.
“Based on the website you showed me, Unitarian Universalism strikes me as being more of a political movement than a religious movement.”
I can assure you, this is not true. I am a Republican and a member of a Unitarian Universalist church. The congregation holds a wide variety political beliefs. It does encourage us to be involved, what ever we may believe politically.
“No really, it’s not about conversation. I’m not into that.”
Duh. I meant “conversion.”
Godwins Law is a rule worth understanding.
Invoking Hitler or Nazis usually signals the productive end to a discussion. Especially when those who reference Hitler as a boogie man do not really understand his beliefs.
“Especially when those who reference Hitler as a boogie man do not really understand his beliefs.”
Outside of beliefs in the Aryan Race and its disastrous implications, how would you categorize Hitler’s beliefs?
Technically, I would categorize Hitler as a Totalitarian, Liberal Fascist. All labels that are almost as inflammatory as “Nazi”!!
Good topic.
CT: The old Yankees in MA and NE traded ideas. They dropped the old ideas about God as Puritans understood Him and the Bible, etc. They assumed the ideas from the French Revolution in Yankee USA clothing and issues.
They kept the the cultural form and thinking about their ideas, how to expound them, etc – for which I provided labels.
I don’t see what is so confusing.
In Virginia, part of our Tidewater sub-culture is a live and let live for folks. What you do on your property is your business. Your family is your business, etc. It’s much more relaxed about taking people as they are. Broad generality – but I can cite the scholarly works as needed (Albion’s Seed for one).
I’ll let the Unitarian can of worms run free for awhile until the sun fries them all up. Too much work to describe how Protestants become Apostates in 150 years – in the comments section.
James — Live and let live involves an ideological belief most admire in theory but disregard in practice. That is why it only seems to work well in multi-polar societies.
“Too much work to describe how Protestants become Apostates in 150 years – in the comments section.”
That is why I suggested you do a post or reference something that describes how Protestants become Apostates in 150 years.
JB and kgotthardt – While it would undoubtedly boost my readership, I am not interested in stirring up controversy over the Unitarian Universalist church. I don’t know enough about it to be mad at it. While I am interested in converting others to the Christian faith, I do not think arguing with people does that.
So I will leave you with the following thought. Over time, many Christian churches have softened the message Jesus gave us, and some have departed from it. That has been made easier by the fact the Bible is a long and complex work. As a history that spans many centuries, the Bible is difficult to understand. That is why some of our earliest scholars were theologians. To fully understand the message of God, these men dedicated their lives to the understanding of ancient languages and cultures.
While the Bible still very much holds a message for us, it was written by people for people who left this world long ago. To understand the meaning of the Bible, and why the people the Bible describes did what they did, we must understand the Bible as the Bible’s writers would have intended. We must put ourselves in the place of their intended audience and listen with those ears. To do that, there is no substitute for careful study. Prayer, however, does help.
The first folks to translate the Bible from Latin to English (Wycliffe? I forget) did so – so that “any plough boy might read and understand the Scriptures as well as any priest.” – or close to that from my imperfect memory.
The Bible today speaks as clearly as it did 3000 years ago when Moses wrote the Pentateuch.
It takes reading, pondering and praying – and the Bible will speak to any and every human heart.
Pingback: RIDICULING APOSTATE OR SIMPLY CONFUSED? « Citizen Tom
James – Since I thought the quote interesting, I looked it up. William Tyndale once said (see here) “If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough to know more of the Scriptures than thou dost”.
I don’t care to argue about who is “right or wrong” in faith related issues. I’m a very “live and let live” person, and I appreciate respectful, interfaith dialogue. Like anyone else, I don’t want my beliefs to be castigated. We don’t all have to believe the same things but we SHOULD be allowed to believe what we want without being persecuted.
JB, I believe the Bible DOES have something to say to everyone. But I don’t believe it says the same things to everyone.
That said, I would appreciate not being referred to as a a worm to be fried up. I’m sure you didn’t mean anything by it, but it hit me the wrong way.
“JB and kgotthardt – While it would undoubtedly boost my readership, I am not interested in stirring up controversy over the Unitarian Universalist church. I don’t know enough about it to be mad at it. While I am interested in converting others to the Christian faith, I do not think arguing with people does that.”
Thank you Tom. You are a voice of reason which is why I am here consistently.
kgotthardt – Thank you for the very kind compliment. It is more than I deserve.