Do you think secularists are walking the walk better?
I think that talking the talk is important in order to walk the walk. It simply is logical - isn't it?
What is good about religion?
- Thread starter articulett
- Start date
-
- Tags
- patcondell youtube
Do you think secularists are walking the walk better?
I think that talking the talk is important in order to walk the walk. It simply is logical - isn't it?
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
The people I most admire and who I find to be the most "moral" tend to be secularists. I don't find any gurus worthy of special adoration. Lots of things are logical. You are not. I just can't fathom why you are here on this forum except that you really believe that your woo is the true woo and that we should take to it like you have. But every woo is like that. And I feel the same way about it as the guy in the OP video feels about religions in general. Religions might be fine, if the faithful would just keep it to themselves the way they want to be left alone by the faiths they don't believe in? Do you want Mormons knocking on your door? Scientologists invading your forum telling you to just TRY their personality test? I wish religious morality included minding their own business-- or spending more time doing good and less time talking about all the good they supposedly do.
By the way, secularism isn't a faith... and I define morality more by actions than by beliefs. Secularism is just a neutral stand that doesn't allow one religion to tramp over others or to tramp over non-belief. That's it. Our government in the U.S. was founded on it, and I intend to keep it that way. It's not meant to make people moral. Religion is supposed to do so, but there is no evidence that it works. I think morality evolves from reciprocity (basic game theory) and is molded by the culture and examples you are exposed to in childhood.
Last edited:
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
Sure--how else can you lead the masses. Don't you think people thought the same about Hitler. And there is a fabulous documentary on Jim Jones of the Peoples' Temple. I sure thought as much about Uri Gellar when I was a teen. And have you seen Randi uncover the seemingly trustworthy and miraculous Peter pop-off? Lots of people trusted Ted Haggard and Priests are routinely seen as trustworthy men of the cloth--though we know they've paid millions to settle sex abuse cases. Scott Peterson seemed trustworthy to Laci Peterson AND Amber Frey. I'm sure Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gayce seemed like really nice guys. All that means is that if you can appear trustworthy and lofty-- you can gain a lot more followers (if that's your desire)--who will prop up your inflated view of yourself.
My real heroes don't seek the glory-- they want others to trust FACTS not them or anyone who pretends to speak for the creator of the universe.
rocketdodger
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2005
- Messages
- 6,946
Yes.
cnorman18
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 304
An interesting thread
A fascinating discussion. Sometimes it seems to be about the benefits (or injuries) of religion to the individual, sometimes to society. The atheists (and/or agnostics, I suppose) seem to plump for the idea that religion has been mostly negative in its effects; the believers disagree (duh), but haven't made much of a case.
To be fair, the atheists haven't made much of a case either; most of their criticisms seem to be based on stereotypes and prejudices about religion, though it's clear to most intelligent people that those stereotypes don't come from thin air, and there is much in the history of religion (and in contemporary religion) that justifies such prejudice.
Here's my take: Religion is like any other human invention (yes, I said that, though I am religious myself; more on that later); it can be, and has been, used for both good and evil, and it's very hard to make a case that it is PRIMARILY either.
Writing and printing can record and preserve either great art or pornography, brilliant analysis or rank propaganda; an ax can build or behead, a gun can be used to commit a crime or prevent one. None of these are either bad or good; they are tools, and the morality of a tool follows the intent of the person using it.
The fact that religion CLAIMS to be inherently good and moral in itself is irrelevant. The Glock people strive to make pistols that are reliable, accurate, durable, light and easy to use--good guns; and so they are. In the hands of a cop or a responsible citizen, those are all good things. In the hands of a murderer or armed robber, those intentions become irrelevant at best, or actually bad (if a criminal's gun jams, that's a GOOD thing).
(I decline to get into a side debate on gun control. I have another forum for that. Thanks.)
So with religion. St. Francis; Jim Jones. Charity hospitals; Jihadist training camps. Scientific advances (Gregor Mendel, Roger Bacon); the refinement of torture (Torquemada, Cotton Mather).
No one with a fair mind can deny that religion has produced some of history's noblest and greatest people, and directly so; the astonishing selflessness, devotion, and humility of Mother Teresa was a direct result of her Catholic faith. There have been many such, of many faiths, and the overwhelming majority of them are ordinary people of whom we have never heard and never will (as Dennis Prager has observed, most famous people are not significant, and most significant people are not famous).
It is equally true that religion has also produced some of history's worst and most ignoble people, and also directly; the aforementioned Torquemada will do, and he was of the same faith as Mother Teresa--and by his lights (by the "feeling in his heart", if you like), he was equally devoted. And, as with the unknown good people, there are unknown myriads of those who profess faith, but use it to justify all manner of cruelty, oppression, ignorance, and greed.
The evil negates the good not at all, but the reverse is true as well.
Religion is what it is, good and bad. Fire cooks and blisters; a rosebush has blossoms and thorns (perhaps this principle applies to things that were NOT created by humans, as well). At any rate, we're not going to see the end of it anytime soon, and as I've indicated, that is both a good thing and a bad. I think it's less sensible to castigate and canpaign against religion itself than to apply that outrage to those who use, misuse, and pervert it to evil or selfish purposes--and there's certainly no shortage of THOSE. Where religion sparks charity, unselfishness, creativity and the impulses toward love and peace--well, perhaps it would be best to leave it alone, even if one is convinced that it's founded on a faulty premise. Even if it actually is.
My own faith? I'm a Jew (obviously not a terribly observant Jew, or I wouldn't be writing on the Sabbath). Most of this discussion just doesn't apply. If you want to see why, look at my thread "Submitted for your consideration".
Thanks for reading. I hope my contribution was useful or at least thought-provoking.
A fascinating discussion. Sometimes it seems to be about the benefits (or injuries) of religion to the individual, sometimes to society. The atheists (and/or agnostics, I suppose) seem to plump for the idea that religion has been mostly negative in its effects; the believers disagree (duh), but haven't made much of a case.
To be fair, the atheists haven't made much of a case either; most of their criticisms seem to be based on stereotypes and prejudices about religion, though it's clear to most intelligent people that those stereotypes don't come from thin air, and there is much in the history of religion (and in contemporary religion) that justifies such prejudice.
Here's my take: Religion is like any other human invention (yes, I said that, though I am religious myself; more on that later); it can be, and has been, used for both good and evil, and it's very hard to make a case that it is PRIMARILY either.
Writing and printing can record and preserve either great art or pornography, brilliant analysis or rank propaganda; an ax can build or behead, a gun can be used to commit a crime or prevent one. None of these are either bad or good; they are tools, and the morality of a tool follows the intent of the person using it.
The fact that religion CLAIMS to be inherently good and moral in itself is irrelevant. The Glock people strive to make pistols that are reliable, accurate, durable, light and easy to use--good guns; and so they are. In the hands of a cop or a responsible citizen, those are all good things. In the hands of a murderer or armed robber, those intentions become irrelevant at best, or actually bad (if a criminal's gun jams, that's a GOOD thing).
(I decline to get into a side debate on gun control. I have another forum for that. Thanks.)
So with religion. St. Francis; Jim Jones. Charity hospitals; Jihadist training camps. Scientific advances (Gregor Mendel, Roger Bacon); the refinement of torture (Torquemada, Cotton Mather).
No one with a fair mind can deny that religion has produced some of history's noblest and greatest people, and directly so; the astonishing selflessness, devotion, and humility of Mother Teresa was a direct result of her Catholic faith. There have been many such, of many faiths, and the overwhelming majority of them are ordinary people of whom we have never heard and never will (as Dennis Prager has observed, most famous people are not significant, and most significant people are not famous).
It is equally true that religion has also produced some of history's worst and most ignoble people, and also directly; the aforementioned Torquemada will do, and he was of the same faith as Mother Teresa--and by his lights (by the "feeling in his heart", if you like), he was equally devoted. And, as with the unknown good people, there are unknown myriads of those who profess faith, but use it to justify all manner of cruelty, oppression, ignorance, and greed.
The evil negates the good not at all, but the reverse is true as well.
Religion is what it is, good and bad. Fire cooks and blisters; a rosebush has blossoms and thorns (perhaps this principle applies to things that were NOT created by humans, as well). At any rate, we're not going to see the end of it anytime soon, and as I've indicated, that is both a good thing and a bad. I think it's less sensible to castigate and canpaign against religion itself than to apply that outrage to those who use, misuse, and pervert it to evil or selfish purposes--and there's certainly no shortage of THOSE. Where religion sparks charity, unselfishness, creativity and the impulses toward love and peace--well, perhaps it would be best to leave it alone, even if one is convinced that it's founded on a faulty premise. Even if it actually is.
My own faith? I'm a Jew (obviously not a terribly observant Jew, or I wouldn't be writing on the Sabbath). Most of this discussion just doesn't apply. If you want to see why, look at my thread "Submitted for your consideration".
Thanks for reading. I hope my contribution was useful or at least thought-provoking.
slingblade
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2005
- Messages
- 23,466
Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker.
Jimmy Swaggart.
Marvin Gorman.
Oral Roberts.
Peter Popoff.
Ted Haggard.
Randy and Paula White.
Bishop Weeks.
Juanita Bynum.
Aimee Semple McPherson.
Marjoe Gortner.
WV Grant.
Jim Jones.
Garner Ted Armstrong.
Kent Hovind.
Father Brendan Smyth.
Fr. Jim Grennan.
Fr. Sean Fortune.
I could go on.
That they appear "lofty" (?) and trustworthy doesn't appear to mean they are.
Apology
This title intentionally left blank
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,126
If the two quotes at the top of the website I linked aren't enough evidence for you that he wasn't a Christian, then I don't know what to tell you. I don't think that there is enough evidence to declare him either theist or atheist. I think Hitler made up his own rules and did whatever was convenient for him and flip-flopped between the two throughout his life and reign. That's why I think he's a bad example. Remember, Mein Kampf was written early in his life, before he actually rose to power. He wasn't above changing his mind or contradicting himself, since he just killed anyone that pointed out the contradictions. Also, let's not forget that he was insane. We can't expect any consistency from the insane, after all.
Seriously, Hitler is a terrible example to use in any argument, not just religious ones. I argue just as vehemently with Christians who try to say that he was atheist because there isn't conclusive proof of that either.
Hitler is a hot potato. Nobody wants him. Both sides try to attribute him to the other as an insult, and neither side has a good case for it. I wish everyone would leave Hitler out of it.
Gregoire
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 525
You always find the best websites! Thanks.
I can't think of anything else to add right now. Maybe after I think about it this weekend I might be able come up with another thing to add.
Last edited:
rocketdodger
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2005
- Messages
- 6,946
No. We have hard evidence. We have also presented it time and time again on this forum.
No. Religion dictates morality, and so the morality of the person follows the morality of the tool in this case.
Yes, we can. Many now argue that the astonishing selflessness, devotion, and humility of Mother Teresa may have done more harm than good. The "noblest and greatest" of history are often not what they are popularly made out to be. And in any case, there is no evidence that greatest in our history are any more a product of religion than North Korea's great economic power and living standards are a product of Kim Jong Il. Oh, wait, they are. So what does that say about religion...
These words are intelligent, and I give you credit for that. They are not, however, wise. The ideals of religion, of absolute truth and justice, are inherently unstable. In layman's terms, a ticking time bomb. Thats the problem with believing a juju gets to tell you what to do. History has shown us this over and over and over and over and over. The sad thing is, humanity either never learns or they learn and forget.
karmicserenade
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2007
- Messages
- 133
Religion creates structure and order amongst the masses, it binds people to a cause, and in a sense controls. It also instills fear, and that is good for the people in charge who benefit from the gain of church funds in their pockets (ie, the vatican). In the past the Religious leaders had more power than the Royal families.
In my opinion, religion is oppressive and basically for sheep. I am proud to say I have no part in any religion
In my opinion, religion is oppressive and basically for sheep. I am proud to say I have no part in any religion
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
Well, none of his words label him an atheist. He considered himself a Christian. He also considered himself a Catholic... maybe his disgust with Christianity had to do with Protestantism--the competing "christianity" at that time in Europe (and still competing, I might add... neither group feels the other are true Christians for the most part.) The facts are that the Nazis were almost entirely people of Catholic or Protestant faith--both of whom consider themselves Christian... Hitler considered himself Catholic on his dying day and repeatedly spoke out against both secularism AND atheism. The Nazis felt themselves to be doing Jesus' work. I have read nothing to indicate that any of them were atheists or even secularists (which are just people who want to keep church and state separate.) I think that the fact that so many people think Hitler was an atheist is due to propaganda by theists. I think it's his own words that lead the unindoctrinated to conclude that the Nazis considered themselves to be followers of Christ--doing Christ's will. This is true in white supremacist groups such as the KKK or Aryan Nation today. BTW, they consider Hitler a Christian.
If you want to judge based on words alone-- I don't think there are any words that point to Hitler considering himself an atheist and lots to show that he considered atheists immoral. Moreover, there is tons of evidence that the Nazis considered themselves Christians and none to show that they considered themselves atheists. Like the religious right in America, they felt patriotism and allegiance to the cause was tied in with Christianity-- and Christians don't like the comparison, but I bet they couldn't tell Hitler's words from their own leaders words.
http://communities.canada.com/shareit/forums/post/55444.aspx
http://ffrf.org/quiz/ffrfquiz.php
http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitlerchristian.htm
http://funnystrange.com/quiz/
If you can't tell the difference as to whether Jesus said it or Hitler said it-- I think it's safe to assume that Hitler was getting his ideas from the "good book". I think a lot of people don't really know what Hitler said nor what the bible actually says nor do I think they could tell the quotes from the supposed "good guys" and "bad guys". Jetlag may think it's more important to "talk the talk"-- but when all the talk sounds the same, I prefer to look at actions and evidence. The actions and evidence show that the Nazis considered themselves to be followers of Jesus Christ. Whether Christians want to claim him is another story. They can't foist him in the non-belief category because he never claimed to not believe in a god. Moreover, he made his disgust with the immorality of atheism known.
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
And despite the "thou shall not kill" thing-- the bible has been used to say that Jesus supports guns:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=318
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=45068
http://www.lockstockandbarrel.org/Press Releases/quotes_for_the_christian_gun_own.htm
http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/97/bibgunctrl.html
http://healtheland.wordpress.com/2007/08/30/jesus-christ-opposes-gun-control/
If it's not obvious that it's people who created god from the above and that people use these writings to justify doing what they want to do, then I don't know what is.
Clearly, religion makes people think they are moral and special and chosen and compassionate and more right than others-- while acting offended should anyone ask for evidence. Telling people "faith is good" makes them very easy to manipulate... hopefully by a person who can get them to actually do good things... but the evidence doesn't look promising.
Faith turns people into the ultimate confirmers of bias--cherry pickers while having a knee-jerk judgment of non-belief without supporting evidence for their reaction. They are forever seeing religion under rose colored glasses and disassociating themselves from the unsavory aspects while exaggerating the "shrillness" and "immorality" of the non-believers.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=318
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=45068
http://www.lockstockandbarrel.org/Press Releases/quotes_for_the_christian_gun_own.htm
http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/97/bibgunctrl.html
http://healtheland.wordpress.com/2007/08/30/jesus-christ-opposes-gun-control/
If it's not obvious that it's people who created god from the above and that people use these writings to justify doing what they want to do, then I don't know what is.
Clearly, religion makes people think they are moral and special and chosen and compassionate and more right than others-- while acting offended should anyone ask for evidence. Telling people "faith is good" makes them very easy to manipulate... hopefully by a person who can get them to actually do good things... but the evidence doesn't look promising.
Faith turns people into the ultimate confirmers of bias--cherry pickers while having a knee-jerk judgment of non-belief without supporting evidence for their reaction. They are forever seeing religion under rose colored glasses and disassociating themselves from the unsavory aspects while exaggerating the "shrillness" and "immorality" of the non-believers.
Last edited:
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
You always find the best websites! Thanks.
I can't think of anything else to add right now. Maybe after I think about it this weekend I might be able come up with another thing to add.
Oh, I'm glad you like it, and thanks for posting. I accidentally got you confused with "gregory" who didn't have such a fondness for the clip or the guy in the clip, but I haven't figured out why yet. He thought the video guys was an "angry atheist", but he didn't come off as that way at all to me. I love this guy's videos. And I suspect people don't like him because he makes them have to think about things they don't want to think about regarding their own beliefs, but I'm not sure--(and the critics don't tend to be particularly coherent.)
Last edited:
Apology
This title intentionally left blank
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,126
I really appreciate all your effort in putting this post together. However, this guy makes a pretty good argument for Hitler being an opportunist and a liar, and playing all sides when it benefited him:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html
Hitler used religious sentiment to manipulate the people when it suited him, and he made anti-religious statements when that suited him. He did have to deal with the fact that a lot of the Germans were Protestants and Catholics when he took over. It even helped him motivate and unite them in his insane quest for "racial purity." He could stir the sentiments of the Christians, both Protestant and Catholic, more easily against the Jews by using religious rhetoric. (I think it should be mentioned here that not all German Christians accepted this, and some Christians did get whacked for opposing Hitler and not helping him get rid of the Jews). It does not surprise me at all that Hitler ripped off Jesus in his speeches. He wanted to be greater than Jesus. He knew a good act when he saw one. He even had a long term plan to institute his own form of Christianity and do away with Catholicism and Protestantism entirely some day:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity
He realized that he would never be able to stomp out Christianity entirely so he decided to rewrite it. Stomping out all the non-Aryan minorities was a big enough job as it was. He carefully calculated the bare minimum of Christian symbolism that was needed to keep the people obedient and docile. He thought that he could lose the people's support if he attacked religion too strongly. He was going to have to allow them to keep some Christian symbolism, but this was going to be an Aryan religion, not a Christian religion. The new dogma would have been written by Adolph Hitler. If his plan had been carried out, it would have only paid lip service to Christianity, because Hitler wanted the people to worship him most of all.
He knew by then what a powerful tool of control religion could be and he wanted that power for himself. In order to usurp all the pre-existing religions in Germany and substitute his own, he had to get rid of the atheists because they interfered with his control of his people by refuting his new dogma. Since there weren't that many of them, he could spare them even if they were Aryan. He was ruthless and a megalomaniac. Anyone who interfered with him was disposed of. He used every available tool to support his own power, especially Christianity.
An important fact to remember is that, much like Jesus, Adolph Hitler's words can be taken out of context as well. At least we can get a first-hand historical quote from Hitler (lol). The first link I gave you shows that Hitler made enough contradictory statements and writings that you could make a good case for him being either a Christian, non-Christian, or Non-Atheist, if you only used a third of his quotes (the ones that support your position) and ignored all the rest. There's just no way to be sure what he really believed when he said so many contradictory things.
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
All of the quotes asserting Hitler's supposed dislike of Christianity is from Table Talk:-- not a reputable source-- not his writings nor his speeches-- these are supposed private conversations--they are not even recorded: http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm
Why anyone would find this as credible as his many public writings and speeches and translations when the author of table talk was known to have a decided bias is beyond me. I could see why people why Christians would like to disavow him-- but this source would entirely be considered hearsay in a court of law--compared with the numerous pictures, court documents, legal documents, speeches, and writings in the native German and via multiple transcribers.
It's tangential to the topic-- but it drives the point home-- religion teaches a false version of history and people don't question the source. Who needs facts and evidence when you have faith. All these terms are just labels, but anyone who believes in a god or gods is a theist to me... and anyone labeling themselves a Christian is a Christian as far as I'm concerned. Where else would one go to get verification of what ones beliefs were?
And the moving goal posts and no true scotsman argument is just so common among the religious so they can continue to see religion as some pillar of something good....and non-belief as the cause of all evil. That is just a big fat lie. And I don't know how you are defining Christian, but I define it as anyone who believes themselves to be such.
The apologists only seem to look at the evidence that supports what they want to believe while negating the mountains of verifiable contrary evidence. Religion kills rationality.
Why anyone would find this as credible as his many public writings and speeches and translations when the author of table talk was known to have a decided bias is beyond me. I could see why people why Christians would like to disavow him-- but this source would entirely be considered hearsay in a court of law--compared with the numerous pictures, court documents, legal documents, speeches, and writings in the native German and via multiple transcribers.
It's tangential to the topic-- but it drives the point home-- religion teaches a false version of history and people don't question the source. Who needs facts and evidence when you have faith. All these terms are just labels, but anyone who believes in a god or gods is a theist to me... and anyone labeling themselves a Christian is a Christian as far as I'm concerned. Where else would one go to get verification of what ones beliefs were?
And the moving goal posts and no true scotsman argument is just so common among the religious so they can continue to see religion as some pillar of something good....and non-belief as the cause of all evil. That is just a big fat lie. And I don't know how you are defining Christian, but I define it as anyone who believes themselves to be such.
The apologists only seem to look at the evidence that supports what they want to believe while negating the mountains of verifiable contrary evidence. Religion kills rationality.
Last edited:
Apology
This title intentionally left blank
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,126
This atheist website doesn't seem to have a problem with Table Talk and concedes the point that Hitler flipflopped and used religion to manipulate the people:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-hitler.html
You can hardly say that Secularweb Library is a bunch of Christian apologists.
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
That doesn't change the fact that the source is from unrecorded supposed conversations. The ONLY source for the claims that Hitler wasn't really a Christian. If you were doing legal research as to what Hitler believed and advocated, you'd use verifiable sources, because there are many recordings, writings, and video of his words--you wouldn't use hearsay--especially not hearsay from a single source.
It doesn't matter to me, because as far as I'm concerned, everyone who considers themself a "Christian" is a Christian to me... and everyone who lacks a belief in a god is an atheist to me. Hitler repeatedly claims the former and never expresses the latter. That's good enough for me. I don't care about Hitler's beliefs. I am just amazed at the sources people find credible when it supports the beliefs they've been indoctrinated with-- and the huge amount of evidence they will ignore if it conflicts with their faith. God is responsible for all that is good-- and "not god" is responsible for all that is evil-- that is what religions train people to think.
Apology
This title intentionally left blank
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,126
I also considered other sources, like this Time Magazine Article from December 23, 1941, which clearly shows that Hitler was oppressing and killing Christians:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,765103-1,00.html
As a bonus, in the first page there's a quote from Einstein!
I should probably tell you that I don't read atheist or Christian blogs or websites. Most of what I say about Hitler comes from studying history, not religion. I never cared about Hitler's religion either until I noticed, to my great amusement, that theists and atheists alike were both trying to blame Hitler on one another. I have no problem believing that Hitler claimed to be Christian in his life. There's plenty of historical evidence from many different sources that indicate that he was Catholic early on. The testimony that Hitler said he was still a Catholic shortly before he died came from Major Gerhard Engel's private diary, which is another unrecorded supposed conversation. Here's a google book link to a translation of his diaries:
http://books.google.com/books?id=tU...=print&ct=result&cd=2&cad=author-navigational
However, there's also plenty of evidence that Hitler persecuted Catholics and other Christians when it suited him and intended to subvert Christianity to his own devices, which would be heresy and anti-Catholic.
One interesting thing I did stumble across was this cover for a Nazi newspaper from July 1936. The title reads "She belongs to the Church, she belongs to Satan. Both are lost to the German people."
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/images/sturmer/ds4.jpg
You can look at more of the covers if you want to, but it's all Nazi propaganda of the worst sort, so the majority of it is offensive in some way. Fortunately it's all thumbnailed and summarized so clicking through to the website itself is work safe even if the full-sized drawings turn out to be offensive (I haven't clicked them all).
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/sturmer.htm
One of them was translated into English and reprinted in the US by some nutty neo-Nazi "Christian Identity" group. It was about Jews practicing ritual murder on Christians to get their blood to drink in scary Jewish religious rituals (lol). It was pulled off the shelves by the Nazis after it had been out for a while because it also compared Jewish ritual murder with Christian communion. The Nazis must have gotten too many complaints from German Christians, or maybe they didn't want to suggest that anyone could be just as bad as the Jews. Streicher actually wrote this stuff but it was all authorized by the Nazis and had semi-official status. Anti-Christian propaganda in Nazism isn't something that only comes from Table Talks or Christian Apologism.
I never liked televengelists. They all have very bad taste.
They are also not true scotsmen.