E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
AP
Tea Partier Glen Urquhart cites Hitler as the originator of "separation of church and state."
From NBC's Pete Williams
A congressional candidate's statement linking the concept of separation of church and state with Adolf Hitler is getting a new round of attention, even though the man who said it has since backed away from it.
At a campaign event in April, Glen Urquhart -- a Tea Party candidate who's the GOP nominee for Congress in Delaware -- was asked about the issue and replied with a question. "Where does this phrase, 'separation of church and state' come from? Anybody know?" he asked.
When a history teacher in the audience started to answer that it came in a letter from one of the founding fathers, Urquhart said that wasn't the case.
"Actually, that exact phrase is not in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. He was reassuring them that the federal government wouldn't trample on their religion. The exact phrase, 'separation of church and state,' came out of Adolph Hitler's mouth. That's where it comes from. So the next time your liberal friends talk about separation of church and state, ask them why they're Nazis," Urquhart said.
Though he made the comment five months ago, it received renewed scrutiny after a You Tube video of the exchange was posted by the website Rawstory.com.
Many legal scholars have pointed out that Thomas Jefferson did, in fact, write about the concept in his letter to the Baptists in 1802, using the phrase "a wall of separation between Church & State." (Here's a link to the letter. )
Professor Eugene Volokh of the UCLA law school noted on his legal blog that the phrase was well established in the 19th century. "In American court cases alone, it dates back to 1825 (in an argument of counsel) and 1840 (in a judge's opinion). It's quite clear that the American phrase 'separation of church and state' does not at all come from Hitler. It probably pre-existed Jefferson, was likely popularized by him, and was routinely used long before the Americans ever heard of Hitler," Volokh wrote.
In the months since Urquhart made the statement, he has more or less disclaimed it, attributing it to the early steps of a novice campaigner. "Everybody in that room understood what I meant, that tyrants tend to misuse the separation of church and state," he said recently, as reported by Delaware's News Journal newspaper. "The Nazis used the same separation of church and state rhetoric for a very, very bad purpose," Urquhart said.
But was he at least right about Hitler, that he embraced church-state separation? It's a notion widely accepted on many Internet blogs.
But two historians, experts on Nazi Germany, say that's not the case.
"There was never separation of church and state under the Nazis. The two official religions of Germany -- Catholicism and mostly Lutheran Protestantism -- remained the official churches right through the period of the Third Reich," according to Prof. Richard Steigmann-Gall of Kent State University.
"During the war, when tensions grew between Nazis and the churches, particularly over the so-called 'euthanasia campaign,' Hitler privately considered an official separation of church and state. But he relied far too heavily on support from Protestant and Catholic Germans to ever take the idea seriously," he said.
Another expert on the period, Professor Robert Ericksen of Pacific Lutheran University, said the Nazis continued the Weimar Republic's practice of taxing church members and using the money to support Germany's churches. "The state paid for religious education, which was offered in all schools, and the state paid for the theological facilities as before," Ericksen said.
"Most Christians and most Christian clergy -- Protestant and Catholic -- were very enthusiastic supporters of Hitler and the Nazi cause. He promised a return to traditional values and to end the 'moral decadence' of Weimar culture," according to Ericksen.
Ericksen said some Nazi leaders saw Christianity as a rival and opposed church influence. "But Hitler never risked taking on the churches directly, whatever his own preferences might have been."
Leave a Comment:
Well if history is any indication of the power of press over logic and truth , the Spanish American war, the Gulf of Ton kin resolution, and the civil war were examples of the power of propaganda used to get Americans to collectively support military actions that were detrimental to their lives, fortunes and our nation in general.....one comedian once said of the so called "common man".....he only wants one thing .....a "common woman to bed down at night"....so it goes....tell a lie long enough, loudly enough and people will follow you to hell.
"Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?" George Washington in his farewell address. Yep, same George Washington we tried to make our King. Hummmm. Next comment please.
Oh, and I am going to take a gander here and put Thomas Jefferson's comments into context. So there we are, in the early days of America and the country is just getting on its feet. Next thing we know a small town baptist church leader writes old Tom and asks for assurance they will be able to worship Jesus Christ, the God of the white settlers in America, without government madates or interferance. To this Tom replies in the affermative which later this reply is grabbed up by all those who would see God cast out of our nation and twisted to the meaning that church would stay out of government affairs, not the original meaning of goverment would stay out of church affairs. Did I miss anything?
Yes you did. The debate extends to the meaning of church. While I agree with you the concept of Government staying out of the Church, but the Church also staying out of government. Church meaning the organization of a diety's followers, not separation of God, but the Church. (Influenced from the Catholic Church's power and direct connection with the Crown. )
The people become disenfranchised when people not elected by the People nor appointed/approved by elected Representatives (Congress) assume power.
Forward to the current administration, filled with a church of Czars not elected nor approved by Congress. Communists, Marxists, Progressives and Socialists abound. Why did Nancy Pelosi say "you have to pass the bill to find out what is in it"?
A. She is not very bright
B. Because she didn't know what was in it, because they didn't write it. Obama Czars wrote it
C. She can't read with her skin stretched so tight over her eyes.
D. All of the above.
The answer is B. Although D is an exceptable answer.
SIMON you are so right!!!
speak for yourself @Pat Boston, MA. You would be the expert on simple-minded.
the oft quoted saying, "you may have your own opinion, but not your own set of facts," no longer applies. apparently, the tea party candidates can have their own set of facts and history and constitution. this is what happens when what passes for the msm today allowed fox "news" to set the agenda as well as their "narrative" and allowed those telling lies to go unchallenged.
the oft quoted saying, "you may have your own opinion, but not your own set of facts," no longer applies. apparently, the tea party candidates can have their own set of facts and history and constitution. this is what happens when what passes for the msm today allowed fox "news" to set the agenda as well as their "narrative" and allowed those telling lies to go unchallenged.
The whole reason we have seperation of church and state is so no religion becomes powerful enough to have influence and control of govermental affairs. In past ages this was the case and in some countries it still is, ever heard of the vatican?? enough said!
RB IT GOES BOTH WAYS read the 1st admendment
I guess you agree with his initial statement with regard to Hitler....Also,I guess you believe, let the market dictate the health care and it's cost,not by federal intervention
Einstein said he was driven by wanting to know the mind of God and science without religion is inept!! Let's teach our kids the macro evolution faith movement-you're an animal, moral relativity (no rights/wrongs) and survival of the biggest ego/ weirdess and expect the best from our kids! In God we trust?? So help you God??
FYI: Hitler was a flaming evolutionist!! Survival of the fittest (superior race) and moral relativity (killing is ok) was his mission! Now we're teaching it to our kids with tax payers dollars! Nice!
This may be the most simplistic, black and white reasoning in a post I have ever seen. You do know, don't you, Sammy, that if you start out with a false premise, you cannot reach a logical and correct conclusion.
I was just wondering when you Dems used and still compares Bush to Hitler. It was alright then. Now, you're offended when that reference is applied to you. how nice.
The only way you can guarantee freedom of religion is with separation of church and state, otherwise the state will sooner or later invariably try to dictate religion. Having said that, at the same time religious freedom should not mean the freedom to teach anything at all as legitimate religion. There must be some kind of civilized standards for religion, just like there must be some kind of civilized standards for speech, too, and to this end I personally believe we need a future universal (international) standard for all religion in our world, which all religions need to be brought into full compliance with, which in turn fully respects modern day human rights, civil rights, and internationally accepted mental health standards. Until we create this international standard for religion in our world, our world will have no realistic hope of finally ending this growing global threat from radical and extremist religion in our world. - Rick Carter