< Previous: Poetry Sunday: Church Going Up: Site Index Next: Probing the Prosperity Gospel >
Deo Vindice!

Deo vindice!

Gott mitt uns!

Deus vult!

Allahu akhbar!

Informed readers may recognize some or all of the phrases above. In case there are any you're not familiar with, here's a quick primer on what each of them means:

"Deo vindice" is Latin for "God will defend us" or "God is our vindicator". It was the motto of the slaveholding Confederate States of America, and was engraved on their official seal. The CSA firmly believed that the Christian God was on their side in the American Civil War, and made repeated proclamations to that effect. The Confederate senator Thomas Semmes, in proposing this motto, took pains to stress that the CSA had "deviated in the most emphatic manner from the spirit that presided over the construction of the Constitution of the United States, which is silent on the subject of the Deity", and he clearly expected this invocation to bring his side victory.

"Gott mitt uns" is, of course, German for "God is with us", and was a patriotic slogan of the Nazi Party. (Remember this the next time some Christian apologist brings up the disgusting lie that the Nazis were atheistic.) It appeared on the insignia of the Waffen SS - the "brown shirts" - the armed paramilitary wing of the Schutzstaffel, which was the security organization of the Nazi Party itself. According to Karl Wolff, general of the Waffen SS, the organization's oath of loyalty was based on the model of the Jesuits' oath of absolute obedience to the Pope.

"Deus vult" is Latin for "God wills it", and was supposedly the cry of the crowd after Pope Urban's speech in 1095 inaugurating the First Crusade. What would follow were two hundred years of savage religious warfare between Christians and Muslims, in which soldiers on both sides were promised paradise if they died a martyr's death in combat. The Crusaders conquered Jerusalem in 1099, following which they proceeded to massacre almost all the inhabitants of the city. According to one, probably exaggerated account, the blood of the slain flowed as high as the horses' bridles. Although they began in the Middle East, the Crusades soon became an excuse for Christians to persecute and slaughter heretical sects in Europe as well.

"Allahu akhbar" is Arabic for "God is greatest", the Muslim profession of faith known as the takbir. Although it's also used in peaceful contexts, it's become infamous for its use by Islamists who shout it triumphantly as they slaughter the innocent or give their lives in suicide terrorism. In recent months, it's appeared in numerous jihadist videos made in Iraq, the rallying cry of those who cut off the heads of captives on camera.

Despite their origins in different languages and cultures, all four of these phrases express basically the same proposition: that God is on our side and will grant us victory over our enemies. Under all four of these mottoes, armies have marched to war, secure in their faith that the Almighty was championing their cause and would permit them to slay their foes with terrible slaughter.

The terrible, destructive consequences of this belief are almost impossible to overstate. I shudder to imagine all the rivers of blood that have been shed by the armies who made these words their banner. If we could look back through history - if we could see how many battlefields these words have reigned over, how many soldiers cried them righteously while plunging their bright weapons into flesh, how many people's bodies were broken and mangled by fervent believers piously muttering them the whole time - it all seems to blur together, a vast shadow of hatred and horror.

I grant that religion has motivated many acts of love and compassion. Nevertheless, the hate which it can inspire is more vicious and persistent than any other kind. Although there are many causes of war, I know of no others that can last literally for millennia. Over long stretches of time, governments change, national rivalries fade, ethnic groups mingle, and cultural identities become fluid and porous. It is religion and religion alone that allows adherents to persist in a shared identity - and a shared enmity - for centuries on end, with ancient grudges and the memory of old atrocities transmitted faithfully through the generations with undiminished intensity.

In the past few decades, we've seen religious warfare erupt all over the world. In Iraq, there's emerged a swamp of sectarian strife and bloodshed, where armed gangs rule the streets and rival sects clash in a chronic low-level civil war. The power vacuum created by the U.S. occupation reawoke religious rivalries that had long been dormant, but the Iraq quagmire is just the most visible outbreak of a larger conflict simmering across the Muslim world, as Salafist Sunni fanatics wage war on heretical Shi'ites in the name of doctrinal purity and the Shi'ites answer with violence and death squads of their own. In Pakistan, in Afghanistan, in Indonesia, and now spreading into Europe, Islamist zealots wage war on the innocent and seek to create a theocracy ruled by terror.

An even older, and still lingering, religious conflict comes from the Christian memory of hatred of the Jews. According to the New Testament, Pontius Pilate wanted to release Jesus, only to be forced to take action by the Jewish crowds who shouted, "Crucify him! His blood be on us and on our children!" (Matthew 27:25). That ancient blood libel has spawned endless parades of prejudice and bigotry over the centuries and has inspired Christians to spill oceans of Jewish blood in retribution for the supposed death of one. It has given rise to pogroms, ghettoes, inquisitions. In medieval Europe, Jews were savagely persecuted and hounded from place to place, accused of bizarre and ludicrous crimes such as driving nails through stolen communion wafers to further torture Christ, or kidnapping Christian children to drain their blood for use in Passover matzoh. Ultimately, these ages of hate culminated in Hitler's ovens and gas chambers, as the blood libel was born anew to serve the delusions of Nazi racial superiority. After a war that killed millions, anti-Semitism has been driven underground, but it has not vanished.

And even this is not the oldest ongoing religious war. That infamy belongs to the land of Israel/Palestine, where Zionist Jews still believe in the promises of land which God allegedly made to Abraham over four thousand years ago. That seed bears its bitter fruit to this day, as Palestinians and Israelis continue to spill each other's blood over the divisive issue of who will own the land where both groups stake a claim.

How can we put an end to the deadly certainty that inspires holy war? One proposed solution, possibly the most famous, is Abraham Lincoln's oft-quoted aphorism that we should not be concerned with whether God is on our side, but whether we are on God's side.

However, I've never thought this statement was especially profound. What does it even mean? Presumably, if we want to know whether we are on God's side, we should pray and search the scriptures to find out what God wants. How is that any different from what all the crusaders and jihadists throughout history did? They certainly believed that they were doing what God wanted; many of them quoted scripture and church teaching to that end. If we accept that religious text and tradition can be any kind of reliable guide to God's will, then we must accept that those sources often do teach violence and warfare.

Another possible solution to this problem is to retreat into mysticism - to proclaim that God is so completely ineffable, so fundamentally unlike us, that we can know nothing about him and thus can never use a claim of his will as a basis for action. And while a few religious scholars have embraced this philosophy, it seems highly doubtful that the majority will ever accept such a hollow and substanceless belief. People believe in God because they want comfort, support, protection - not a distant, unknowable spirit about whom we can say nothing meaningful. And so long as people continue to believe in a personal god with definite desires, that belief will likely be used to justify violence and division.

There's one final solution that I've heard a few times. It is this: we can accept that we're fallible humans, that we don't know everything, and that anyone who tries to claim certain and absolute knowledge of God's will is likely mistaken. And if we can never claim total certainty about God's will, we can certainly never proclaim that God wants us to slaughter the infidels.

This might be a good solution, except that it flies in the face of the fundamental underlying basis of religion. Throughout recorded history, the spokesmen of faith have taught that belief without evidence, and especially firm and resolute belief without evidence, is a praiseworthy and virtuous character trait. In fact, religion often seems to consider a belief more virtuous in proportion to the amount of evidence against it. This is a perniciously self-sustaining meme, for as the evidence mounts against the scriptural story, it only inspires believers to cling to it all the more tightly.

It seems that as long as belief in God persists, this problem will recur. The hatred which religious partisans have for each other is literally undying. Frankly, I'd leave them to each other and say good riddance, if it weren't for the fact that the rest of us are caught in between them, and innocent people who did not ask to be part of these battles inevitably end up suffering for their sake.

November 19, 2007, 8:30 am • Posted in: The LibraryCommentOptions

Bookmark This:   Del.icio.us del.icio.us   Digg Digg   Reddit Reddit   StumbleUpon StumbleUpon  

25 Comments

to proclaim that God is so completely ineffable.....

Those who make this "sophisticated" argument seem to forget that in biblical times, He was anything BUT "ineffable," and more of a mad publicity hound --sending plagues, parting seas, turning wives into salt and staffs into serpents, incarnating hinself, raising the dead, etc, etc -you'd have to have been pretty dense to be an atheist. I've never heard a satisfactory explanation of why the deity now has to be "hidden" or "ineffable" --- just because it's 2007?

How could he have done any of those things if he doesn't exist?

I do like the information that even the CSA acknowledged something that many modern Christians can't seem to get through their heads, that the Constitution of the United States is not based on Christianity.

I think that terrence was commenting hypothetically, using the way that the Biblical God is depicted. Not as some hazy "Ground of Being" or "Condition of Possibility" or distant Aristotelian Prime Mover, but as an active controller and manipulator of the Universe.

I'm reminded of Sir John Collings Squire's doggerel about World War I:

God heard the nations sing and shout
"Gott strafe England" and "God save the King!"
God this, God that, and God the other thing —
"Good God!" said God, "I've got my work cut out!"

Gott strafe England = God punish England in German

I always thought the 'Gott mit uns' was especially ironic when religious nuts claim that Nazi Germany was an atheistic regime.

SJL,

Did what?

I have a small remark: the SS had black shirts, the brownshirts were SA.

"Deus vult" is Latin for "God wills it", and was supposedly the cry of the crowd after Pope Urban's speech in 1095 inaugurating the First Crusade.

Thank you for putting the "supposedly" in. I still remember a college textbook that left it out; apparently, the authors assumed that even though the peasant masses could barely speak their own version of French, they were perfectly fluent in Classical Latin.

How could he have done any of those things if he doesn't exist?

Do you understand what the phrase "for the sake of argument" means?

I still remember a college textbook that left it out; apparently, the authors assumed that even though the peasant masses could barely speak their own version of French, they were perfectly fluent in Classical Latin.

There's no indication that the authors thought they understood any Latin beyond that statement, is there? It's not as though there's no precedent for people using a few words from another language in speaking to those who mostly know nothing of it and being understood (IE, Kennedy's "Ich bin ein Berliner").

Wikipedia (corroboration encouraged) suggests that the Gott mit uns on the shirts bit isn't necessarily true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_mit_uns

Of course god picks sides. I mean, we are talking about an entity that selects which football team he wants to win the Superbowl every year. Of course, the same team doesn't win every year, so maybe he was with the Nazis and the pope and is with the Muslims now.

I've updated the post with some images of these holy-war slogans in context.

Dave: "Gott Mitt Uns" was always on the SS belt buckles, not on the shirts, as far as I know. Note that the SS was an unofficial branch of the Wehrmacht, which was simply a term used to refer to Germany's armed forces in total. (Truthfully, the exact details of the Nazi organizational hierarchy aren't as important as the fact that at least some of them clearly did wear this as their motto).

Damien: As with most stories from that long ago, historical truth has become fogged. It's possible that the crowd crying "Deus Vult!" was merely a rhetorical flourish added by some later church historian, rather than a true-to-life description of what took place at the speech. Nevertheless, however it originated, this slogan has become associated with the Crusades, and it more than adequately captures the bloodshed and brutality in the name of God that occurred on both sides during them.

Bravo. Well done!

Ebon:

According to Toland in his monumental biography of Hitler, the Pope [which Paul was it? I forget] referred to the Nazi invasion of Russia [which included such decent folk as Einsatzgruppen death squads] as "high-minded gallantry in the defense of Christian civilization" [!]

Not only did the vast majority of Nazis regard themselves as Christian, the leader of the largest Christian denomination in the world regarded them as such as well.

Good point thump, but weren't they not true scotsmen either? heh

A little tidbit (titbit??) in case there are any Papa fans in our community. Mr. Hemingway once said "All thinking men are atheists," and also wore the Gott Mitt Uns belt buckle confiscated during his WWII adventures.

Heh, Mr. N, I suppose those outcasts have to hang together, at least insofar as Protestants are concerned.

Terrence --

Count one here, because I love his run-on thoughts, especially when I'm taking a long squirt out of the winesack in the dusty square. Oh how I wished it would rain. Why is he my favorite anyway, I wonder. It's just something I'll never know, something I'll never know.

I couldn't agree more, Ebon. I actually wrote something about the situation myself a while ago when a guy I knew was killed while observing the Israel/Hezbollah conflict for the UN. It's a shame that religion hinders any sort of permanent resolution and innocent bystanders are continually harmed.

There's no indication that the authors thought they understood any Latin beyond that statement, is there? It's not as though there's no precedent for people using a few words from another language in speaking to those who mostly know nothing of it and being understood (IE, Kennedy's "Ich bin ein Berliner").

Comment by: Alex Weaver
====================
Still looking to be a contrarian Alex? Most educated generals from the south came from West Point or other established schools in which the study of Latin was as common as English. Knowing and understanding Latin was a distinguishing asset when separating the educated from the uneducated. Up until the civil war the south had an especially strong tradition of military service and education. When the south split many of those attending West Point assumed leadership roles in the confederacy and even though the author made no assumptions that those in the south knew latin and its meanings anyone who knows anything about history could safely assume they did. The fact that used the phrase correctly should have been a hint. Many key words in the military in fact have latin origins.
navy latin=navis
captain latin= capitaneus
private latin=privatus
sargent latin=servientern
cavalry latin caballarius
infantry latin=infanterie

In fairness, I believe Alex was referring to the crowd that supposedly cried "Deus Vult!" at Pope Urban's speech inaugurating the Crusades, not to the Confederate army.

In fairness, I'm not sure how there could have been any confusion on that point, after rereading my comment.

Aight,first off,let me set you straight.
The South was not the only "Slave holding states" in america. The North waited 3 YEARS before the released theres AFTER the Emancipation Proclamation. The reason the North STARTED that goddamn war was because the south had its own resources, and own way of revenue side of the factories of the north. The south got tired of the Yankee Bullcrap, and decided, "hey,screw yall, we can make our Own Country." It was Our GOD-GIVEN Right, According to the US. Constitution, and before you go saying, "oh no it was the Slaves! We wanted to free the Slaves! Blah Blah"-STFU! You will STFU Because The South did NOT treat its slaves as Badly as history books and all of the reports say it did. Anytime a Black man or woman was killed, they Usually Deserved it, and guess what again? The KKK Was usually NOT the people to do it. The blacks Killed there own, and the only time anyone was killed was when they were so damn sorry that they wouldnt get out and work or at least try to help. The white people did NOT treat there slaves the way they are told out to be, and the Slave Holders Usually slept with the slaves. So dont try to sell me on that Slave-State Bullshit,ok? Aight,good. Deo Vindice does mean God is Our Vindicator, Because he was, and still is today. Just because we lost then doesnt mean we will lose again. As goes for the Other wars, I dont have Whole family lines and High-Ranking officers such as Captains and Brigadier Generals in it, so Id have no clue.
Thanks for your time. =D
Buldozr

I've approved the previous comment as evidence that there are people who still hold the views discussed in this post. The author is already banned, so you needn't bother to reply.

Aight,first off,let me set you straight.
[demonstrably contrafactual crapola]

Evidence, plzthx.

I spotted a small bug: In the German text, 'mit' (with) is written with just one t.

Buldozr,

The South was not the only "Slave holding states" in america. The North waited 3 YEARS before the released theres AFTER the Emancipation Proclamation.

Two points I would like to make. First of all, due to the poor soil, slavery was never economically viable in the North, so Northern slaves slowly banned slavery way before the Civil War. Second: The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves outside of the Union. In other words, it was a useless document.

The reason the North STARTED that goddamn war was because the south had its own resources, and own way of revenue side of the factories of the north. The south got tired of the Yankee Bullcrap, and decided, "hey,screw yall, we can make our Own Country."

Incorrect. The South left because they thought slavery was a god-given right, and they felt their rights were being tramped. Economically speaking, the North depended on the South and the South depended on the North.

It was Our GOD-GIVEN Right, According to the US. Constitution, and before you go saying, "oh no it was the Slaves! We wanted to free the Slaves! Blah Blah"-STFU!

Quite in all honesty, the North didn’t go to war to free the slaves. Instead, it went to war to unite the Union, because otherwise both countries would have fallen. It only claimed it was fighting slavery so England wouldn’t join the south.

You will STFU Because The South did NOT treat its slaves as Badly as history books and all of the reports say it did.

Sure, I’ll speak up. (Bet you didn’t know that the ‘s’ can be translated as both “speak” and “shut”.) But in this case, you’re partially right. Most slaveowners didn’t treat their slaves harshly. However, there were slaves that were treated inhumanely.

Anytime a Black man or woman was killed, they Usually Deserved it, and guess what again?

I’d have to disagree on this one. The KKK murdered and tortured a lot of innocent people.

The KKK Was usually NOT the people to do it. The blacks Killed there own, and the only time anyone was killed was when they were so damn sorry that they wouldnt get out and work or at least try to help.

Give me proof. I spent the last two months studying the Civil War for a contest, and nothing about black people killing their own came up.

The white people did NOT treat there slaves the way they are told out to be, and the Slave Holders Usually slept with the slaves.

Er, what did you mean? I accept that most slaves slept in similar buildings/beds as their masters did, but usually not under the same roof.

So dont try to sell me on that Slave-State Bullshit,ok? Aight,good.

As long as you don’t try to sell me on the white supremacy BS.

Deo Vindice does mean God is Our Vindicator, Because he was, and still is today. Just because we lost then doesnt mean we will lose again.

Funny. Last time I checked, the guys with the bigger guns won. But, then again, if iron chariots could stop god.

Leave a comment

This comment form is a trap for spambots. If you can see it, don't use it. Use the comment form below.

Please uncheck this box before submitting your comment

Do not uncheck this box

Please uncheck this box before submitting your comment

Do not uncheck this box

Please note: First-time commenters are subject to moderation.

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Comment preview:

Other options:

RECENT POSTS

MUST-READ POSTS (view all)

RECENT COMMENTS

SITE CATEGORIES (explanation)

ARCHIVES

BLOGROLL

PODCASTS

OTHER LINKS

THIS BLOG'S PARENT SITE

SEARCH THIS SITE

WHAT I'M READING

Doubt: A History by Jennifer Michael Hecht

past books >

The Humanist Symposium
The Out Campaign

RSS 2.0 FEED

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

WHY "DAYLIGHT ATHEISM"?

FEEDBACK

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Opera
Firefox
Net Atheists Top Sites Blog Top Sites

Powered by WordPress