Evening star., 1941-10-06
Stain and Hitler
Both Oppose Religion
But Writer Says Fuehrer
Is the More Dangerous Foe
Of Unity Of Mankind
To the Editor Of The Star:

- tHS WOIS dangerous roe
Of Unity of Mankind
To the Editor of The Star:
AS between Nazi-ism and Communism
there Is for us, as I see 1t, no choice.
We want neither. We want no distinctive
element of either. But that is not to
say that they are alike. For there are
deep and profound differences as well as
essential likenesses, and If we are to
understand what we have to deal with
we must be prepared to make discrimi-
nations where the facts call for them.
tianity and propose to eliminate 1t from
their domains. They persecute or toll
crate, terrorize or condone, as opportu-
nifty offers, afraid of rebellion, exas-
perated with the people and the
churches, but still grimly determined in
their purpose. Their enmity is for
Christianity as a religion and for the
church as an institution. They want to
destroy 1t all.
Stain takes his line direct from Lenin.
Religion is the opiate of the people"
The church Is the oppressor of the peo-
pie! And because Of the ostensible truth
in these slogans the Russian people
f1ocked to the Soviet standards But
what was it that the Russian people
turned their backs upon? 1t was some
thing that they knew. 1t certainly was
not something that they did not know.
The religion that they knew stood in
their minds for all religion, 1t was and
had been for generations an intellectual
and spiritual opiate without stimulus or
inspiration. without strength Of spirit or
courage, without search for truth. And
the Russian church was literally an op-
pressor and robber of the people. Tolstoy
knew this well, and so did Dostoevski,
long before the days of Lenin. But while
Tolstoy knew a different and better re-
ligion there is no evidence, I think, that
Stain does.
We must ask, therefore: What is it that
Stain rejects when he rejects Chris
tianity? 1t surely cannot be the Chris
tianity of Bishop Manning, nor of Harry
Emerson Fosdick. nor yet of Reinhold
Niebuhr. 1t may we'll be contended that
he would have rejected the real and
vital Christianity that has made Western
civilization what it is If he had known
it. OF that I cannot say. But the point
here is that the Christianity that Stain
rejects is that of the Russian Orthodox
Church, and 1t is not beyond the capac-
ity Of the imagination of an American
progressive to understand this rejection
If not the "godlessness" that so much
worries Representative Fish. In fact it
is not beyond the possibilities and is even
suggested by recent news items that this
thing that is happening to religion in
Russia is merely a reformation and a
reformation of the first order
On the other hand, the thing that is
happening to Christianity in Germany is
happening to Christianity as we know it.
Hitler knows what Christianity is. The
author of "Mein Kampf" had as true if
not perhaps as profound an understand
ing Of Christianity as the eminent di-
vines whose names we have used in the
preceding paragraph. 1t is not a false,
SOll dPts Va oCdl Slll loIldlllIy tlldC 11lllcI
hates but Christianity at its best. He
hates the doctrine of the unity Of man
kind. He hates the gospel of peace on
earth and good will among men. He
despises forgiveness and esteems love
only for its utilitarian value He is the
sworn enemy Of that universal commu-
nifty which is the Kingdom of Heaven
Enl,a 11y yIyith Cfoliy, he hoe !,
abroad in the world and in extreme
contrast to the Russian cult he has set
up super-race doctrine in Germany
which is the antithesis of Christianity.
Stain, equally with Hitler, has de-
stroyed the international morality that
Christianity had built up in the world
There has been no more intention to
keep faith in Moscow than there has
been in Berlin. But the Russians have
never reasoned international morality
out of the book the way the Germans
have, for German philosophy is per-
meated with the denial that right and
wrong can cross national boundaries.
The denial of the obligation and basis
Of international morality is quite a diff
ferent matter from the occasional vio-
lation Of that morality. 1t Is true that
England and America have violated it
at times. But they have not denied its
existence. Being Christian nations they
could not deny nations obligation to
integrity toward other nations But Hit
Ter and Stain deny it-Hitler much more
effectively and profoundly-and certain
United States Senators deny it, even If
feebly. This is far-reaching attack on
Christianity and Western civilization.
AS threat to Christianity Hitler is
much more dangerous than Stain. It
Is not his prosecutions nor his intoler-
ance that makes him dangerous 1t is
his anti-Christ philosophy. While Sta
lin attacks the church Hitler attacks
Christ. While Stain attacks dogma
and institutionalism Hitler attacks truth.
In the one case the shell and outward
Journalism of Christianity are assailed,
but in the other the vital Christian Cos
pei is undermined.
This is far from saying that Stain is
q Christian, or a reformer, or a tolerant
statesman, or friend Of the people. His
record Of treachery and brutality Is
longer than Hitler's. But he Is not very
dangerous. In the vague yearnings for
the ideals that stir in the hearts of the
youth of the world his Communism has