Dachau
concentration camp, where to start? What
can be said about Dachau that has not already been said? Can any new
observations be drawn? Why not start by making a case in support of Dachau. You read that right, dear reader: Let us
begin by making a case in support of Dachau, its methods, and all that it represented
to the world, then see where that leads us.
Writing in support
of Dachau is not a difficult task. All that is required is a society that has
decided, en masse, to embrace the notion of moral
relativism. For the record, moral relativism has been around since Eve
persuaded Adam to eat the apple. In other words, once moral relativism is
embraced, a population will support
whatever they believe improves their lot, relative to their current existence
and level of happiness.
But what exactly
is “moral relativism?” It is the belief
that moral judgments are not absolute in nature.[1]
There is no such thing as absolute good or evil anywhere, and that includes
inside Dachau. For example, if you were to poll ten people at random waiting in
the supermarket checkout line, the consensus of those ten people --- about
anything --- becomes just as morally binding as any encyclical authored by
whoever sits in the chair of St. Peter, because under the philosophy of moral
relativism the decision of every person in the checkout line is deemed, “morally correct for them.” Pay no mind
to the potential for disaster lurking in this philosophy, which fosters the
freedom to be indifferent to the suffering of your neighbor. This is precisely
the environment that took root in the German population through Hitler and the rhetoric
of his Nazi party.
Note prior to
Hitler’s rise to power the German people were not very happy, to say the least.
The Treaty of Versailles imposed heavy restrictions upon Germany, including
occupation by foreign troops and the payment of reparations to their former
enemies. The German people were ready for exploitation via Hitler’s simple,
“Let’s make a deal” proposition: if you place your moral compass in my hands
and do not ask questions about the morality of my methods, I promise you greater
happiness through jobs, economic recovery, cheap transportation, education, etc.[2]
But it was the casting of the Jews by Hitler as the guiding hand behind these
restrictive treaty terms that gnawed at moral fabric of the German people.[3]
What then, becomes
the fruit of moral relativism inside Germany during and after Hitler’s rise to
power? Dachau was the fruit. Whenever
there is a concern or doubt about the direction their government was taking, the
default mental state of a German citizen for deciding if an act was morally
reprehensible or not had been reset to, “if it benefits me, tolerate it.” Indeed,
this is how the camp system gradually migrated from “reeducation camps” to
extermination camps, right under the nose of the German people.
We have likely by
now all seen photos of the remnants of Nazi extermination camps, but first
person accounts written by American soldiers who liberated Dachau attempt to
put into words the horror they discovered. American officers were leading
troops towards Munich when townsfolk living in the town of Dachau informed them
that they should divert from their objective and investigate a nearby “camp.”[4]
Subsequently, Corporal Robert Flora reported the American troops captured some
of the camp guards, and they were the
lucky ones. As sick, tired, and hungry as the prisoners were when
discovered, the newly liberated hunted down and beat to death the guards that
were not captured. Flora remarked to one, “I don’t blame you” as he was
stomping the face of his former persecutor into a pulp.
Tolerance had run
amok for years throughout Germany, and notice the attitude was contagious. But
this should not be a surprise to anyone. When those holding power in Germany pass
legislation or take action that is abusive to a certain race or group, what outcome
do we expect to find where moral relativism is now the accepted standard? Precisely
this: we find that the definition of, “do unto your neighbor what you would
have your neighbor do to you” now defined
for us by the state.
How can Hitler and
the German state get away with this? Simple: the state has replaced a superseding
principle, one that endorses the existence of absolute good and evil, with the principle
of ethical relativism. As such, whatever formerly constituted “abusive” action has
now been made relative to the definition of “abusive” endorsed by the state and
its leaders, a definition which is no longer based on the principle of natural
law as given to man by God. Natural law is now cast as arbitrary, a limiter on
behavior that has been placed in opposition to throwing off the yoke of
post-WWI oppression inside Nazi Germany. Such thinking produces a population
conditioned to embrace Dachau, and all that the word “Dachau” truly defines. Morality
is now subject to the whims of legislation, or simply the decision of the one person
in power.
So, it came down
to this line of thought for the ethnic German Aryan citizen: I am told by my
Führer that Dachau is good for me, therefore, Dachau is good for me. Pope John Paul II addressed this exact
pitfall in VERITATIS SPLENDOR when he wrote:
“This
is the risk of an alliance between democracy and ethical relativism, which
would remove any sure moral reference point from political and social life, and
on a deeper level make the acknowledgement of truth impossible (emphasis in
original.) Indeed, “if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political
activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of
power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into
open or thinly disguised totalitarianism.” (VS 101.)
In addition to the above, Pope John XXIII in his
encyclical, PACEM IN TERRIS also wrote:
Governmental authority, therefore, is a postulate of the
moral order and derives from God. Consequently, laws and decrees passed in
contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no
binding force in conscience, since “it is right to obey God rather than men.”
Indeed, the passing of such laws undermines the very nature
of authority and results in shameful abuse. As St. Thomas teaches, “In regard
to the second proposition, we maintain that human law has the rationale of law
in so far as it is in accordance with right reason, and as such it obviously
derives from eternal law. A law that is at variance with reason is to that
extent unjust and has no longer the rationale of law. It is rather an act of
violence.” (PT 51.)
In light of the
above, and given the circumstances in Germany when Hitler began his political
career, it becomes a fair question to ask:
Q. How did Hitler create this
environment of ethical relativism, throughout an entire nation no less, that was
durable enough to support laws supporting not only Dachau, but also the Holocaust?
A. By the same methods we do today
in America.
The formula for
creating an ethically relative and “tolerant” population is as ingenious as it
is simple: Hijack morality by separating morality
from liberty. And this is exactly what Hitler did in his rise to power.
Hitler legislated against liberty. Bit-by-bit Hitler legislated away (or simply
stole by force,) the liberty of the Jews and certain other undesirable groups,
such as Catholics, Communists, and Protestants. With the help of the intense
propaganda machine built by his propaganda minister, Josef Goebbels, Hitler gradually
sold a primed and ready German population on the idea that, relative to the
harm allegedly caused by the Jews, Christians, Gypsies, the infirm, etc., Germany would be a better place with them in
Dachau. As such, we are actually doing the world a favor by removing these
problems in our midst, by any means
necessary.
Here in America we
have travelled a different path than Hitler, but a no less effective path, on
our merry way towards embracing ethical relativism in daily life. How so? In
America, a relatively few people worked through the judicial branch of
government to overturn the will of the majority. In three landmark Supreme
Court cases in 1962 and 1963 concerning prayer in schools (Engel
v. Vitale, Murray v. Curlett, Abington
Township School District v. Schempp,)[5]
the Supreme Court established a solid wall of separation between religion and
all matters of state. Note philosophers and theologians understand that
morality springs from religion, as Pope John Paul also writes in Veritatis
Splendor, “Indeed, at the
heart of the issue of culture we find the moral sense, which
is in turn rooted and fulfilled in the religious sense” (emphasis in
original) VS 98. In other words, wipe away the moral sense from a culture, and
you simultaneously wipe away the religious sense. At that point, a leader at
least attains an apathetic resignation to Dachau, if not outright popular
support.
Like Hitler before
us, we have replaced God and granted each
person the liberty to define morality. What Hitler had the liberty to do,
he did, regardless of the morality of his
actions. Hitler told the German people they had the liberty to send people
to Dachau for various reasons (or no reason.) Sound familiar? The effects of this same separation of justice and
morality are now hiding in plain sight under the cloak of tolerance, felt in
every federal and state government department or service. For example, the
liberty of abortion approved on demand? Tolerated. Euthanasia legalized? Tolerated.
Homosexual marriage? Tolerated.
As a citizen
living in Germany from approximately 1930 until the end of the war I would have
entrusted my moral sense to my government, which in turn subjugated the God-given
natural law guiding this sense, to Hitler and his band of henchmen. Liberty in
Germany gradually became untethered to a morality based on Truth, and one of
the worst consequences of this decision was the creation Dachau, the first in a
series of concentration camps that led to the extermination of millions. All in
the name of a tolerance backed by the currency of ethical and moral relativism.
[1] Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy Contributor. “Moral Relativism” at Stanford Metaphysics Research Lab,
9 December 2008, at
[2]
Ronald J. Rychlak, Hitler, the War, and
the Pope (Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, Huntington, IN, 2000), p 93.
[3]
Ibid., 44.
[4]
Sam Dann, DACHAU 29 April 1945,
(Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock, Texas), p 18.
[5]
David Hudson Jr., The Handy Supreme Court
Answer Book (Visible Ink Press, Canton, MI, 2008), p 316.
