You. Yes, you: I’m speaking to you. Chris T.N, come here.
Yes, Herr Nacht C.?
Do not be afraid. I just wish to speak. Why is it that you seek to impose your religious values on the politics of the State? Do you not believe in the separation of Church and State?
That’s a lot to respond to, Herr. May I ask, good Herr, what is the context of the question?
Nein. I’ll ask you simple questions and I will proceed to show how you demand your religious values over the State.
Okay, that is fair…
Evidence For the Humanity Of Jews
Herr Nacht C.: Indeed, it is fair! Now, Is it not the case that you believe that the Jew is a human?
Chris T.N: Yes, it is the case, Herr.
And is it not the case that you seek to afford the Jew the same moral status that you and I grant to actual humans?
Yes, that is also the case, Herr.
Is it not the case that the State has made a legal proclamation about the personhood of the Jew?
Yes it is.
And is it not so that the State has pointed out that the Jew’s humanity is not up for discussion but rather the defense of the State’s right to choose how we treat this or that non-human? After all, is this a question regarding actions and not the (supposed) humanity of Jews?
Well, I strongly disagree with that.
Disagreement is fine, Chris T.N.: I will graciously allow your disagreement. We should make all efforts to employ civil discourse about this issue while we continue to hinder the air-poison of breathing Jews. That said, your disagreement must stay within the confines of your personal religious circle. It should have no bearing on politics or even the moral opinions of others.
That’s a lot to address, Herr. But, I don’t think this is only a religious position. Partially, this is a fundamental issue on the nature of humans.
So you say, but on what grounds are you deciding that the Jews are humans.
I’m confused, Herr. Are you asking me why I believe Jews are human or if I’m justified in believing Jews are human?
What is the difference?
Well, if this was only an argument of opinions where you say “not human” and I say “human” that wouldn’t get us very far. In fact, I can give you several reasons I believe Jews are human but they’re reasons you repeatedly deny. For example, I can point out that the genetic structure of the Jew is the structure of a human.
That is seriously debatable.
Not really. Isn’t it the case that your doctors perform scientific tests on Jews? Freezing, torture, testing infectious diseases and things like that? In trying to find cures for human diseases and conditions do you not test on Jews?
Yes, of course.
Why not perform these tests on mice?
Mice wouldn’t yield the data that would help us.
What about a gorilla? 99% of their genetic information is similar to ours. Surely the gorilla is sufficient.
It wouldn’t yield accurate data. Ah, I see what you’re doing. By showing that the Jewish genetic structure is equivalent to a full human’s genetic structure, therefore it is human.
And yet you deny the scientific conclusions?
Of course. Doing what we do to the Jew to an actual Human would be monstrous—but thankfully the Jew isn’t human. And even if the Jew was mostly human, the Jew is merely sub-human or pre-human at best. Essentially a parasitic lumping of cells in a humanoid form.
See, the first question isn’t really why I believe the Jew is human, but rather if I’m justified in believing that the Jew is human. You argue against science in the name of science = and then stand on the side of freedom and the state by claiming the right to choose. My position starts with the belief that the Jew is human, and there are no justifiable reasons to believe otherwise. There is an unstated question you are asking though.
And what is that….
The second question you’re really asking is about the nature of my authority in my religion and how that relates with politics.
Limiting an Unlimited Authority Who Has Established the Humanity of Jews
Herr Nacht C.: Explain.
Chris T.N: You offered the authority of the State and you put that against the authority in my religion and then you stated that my authority has no right to traverse into the political field.
You can believe whatever you want in your religion, and within your religion you shouldn’t do what you don’t believe in doing. But this is the State and your religion has no say.
Well, who is in charge of humans?
But you just said that within my religion, humans are under an authority that shouldn’t traverse into the authority of the State. Who is in charge of the humans within the Religion?
Well, whatever god it is you proclaim. But even then, that has limitations.
Well, anything outside the realm of beliefs.
So if I also believe a Jew is human because The Authority in my religion claims the Jew is human, then I shouldn’t kill any Jews—but if the State says otherwise, I should leave this to what realm?
Your personal realm. You personally shouldn’t kill Jews.
How about when the SS asks me if I’m hiding Jews?
Taxes and your commitment to the Laws belong to the State and if those are used for the population control of the Jew, that is a State mandate and your religion has no say.
My God only has a say over what I believe as a human but not any other aspect of my being a human because that traverses into the realm of the State?
That is correct.
Do you not see this authority of yours having say over the Authority in my religion?
Of course not: no one is telling you to worship the State.
But the State has authority over my beliefs when it comes to their practice, over my speaking about my beliefs, and even tries to demand I do what my Authority says is evil. Essentially, I’m capitulating to the State.
You are saying then that the reason you speak into politics is because you feel threatened by the authority of the State?
Not at all, Herr Nacht C. In my religion, who is the authority?
Your god, I guess.
And how much say does He have?
Ultimate say, I gather.
Yes, over all aspects of life and being.
Even over the State?
Yes, even over the State. He is said to be the master over a thousand hills. He was the one who decided to create people and save them. He is the one who punishes them in the end. And he holds everyone responsible for their actions and inactions. He is Unlimited…
And your point?
The Point is that you say that His authority is limited to the realm of my individual beliefs. But my individual beliefs, and those of my religious group, is that He is not limited by those restrictions. So how am I free to believe in a being that is unlimited in authority only within the realm of my religion—a limitation overlaid by a human? Do you see the problem?
I see. It’s not that you are on the defensive; rather you have two contradictory authorities. One is your religion’s God and the other is the State. But isn’t it the case that you can keep your religious opinions to yourself and not enforce them on others?
Well, I’m not enforcing my beliefs on others: I’m proclaiming them, and, when I can, I’m acting on them. Further, I’m not saying that there are two contradictory authorities but rather the State’s authority is ultimately mediated to the State. The State is a sub-authority that is given freedom.
What do you mean?
I might believe that the Jew is human because the authority in my religion says so. I treat them as humans and must then defend them as humans. The State rejects that belief and treats the Jew as a non-human. I can’t ignore this belief because if my Authority is right (and I already believe he is perfectly right in all things) then what the State is doing is a tremendous evil. But the State (any state) has been allowed to reign by My Authority. My Authority, this Ultimate Authority, isn’t twisting the State’s arm but my State could go more and more evil. So I have to do something.
Will you overthrow the State then?
My Authority also tells us that we’re not to advance our kingdom with the Sword. We’re actually the best supporters of how States should be.
So what would your authority have you do?
Stand for what is right and live with a clear conscience before Him, Herr Nacht C. Pay taxes while declaring what the State is doing is wrong. Expose the evil of the State while seeking to be a supporter of life within the State for the People’s good. Pray for this State knowing they will never reach God’s ideal and yet they are called to stand rightly.
Therefore you defend the moral status of the Jew because you believe he is human and your authority—that I don’t acknowledge but who you say is over The State—says so?
Yes and because the Jew is actually human.
Ultimate Authorities on the Humanity of Jews
Herr Nacht C.: That is irrational and circular. How can you defend your premise by simply stating the premise?
Chris T.N: Well, what do you define as a human?
Those persons who have the distinctive features of being human which include a clean genetic information whose highest form is found in the Aryan race.
And on what grounds do you base that definition of humanity.
On the grounds that it is true: all other races are sub-human.
So you have reached a point which you have demarcated as an ultimate truth. You yourself went back and defended the position simply on the basis that it is so.
Very well then, but I have the power of the State backing up my definition.
And I have the one who has created humans in his own image backing up my definition.
And who is the State but the people who are in power at such and such time.
So why should I trust the judgment of finite people in such-and-such time over against the judgment of a God who apparently knows all things as stated within my beliefs?
That’s still a matter of faith, Chris. The State is the power that matters in the political realm.
This State versus That State on the Humanity of Jews
Chris T.N: Tell me, was there a point in history where the State believed Jews to be human?
If I said that I agreed with that State over against the current State, which position is right?
Well, this State of course.
Because we must be committed to the power of the State that is in power; not to the power of the State that was in power. Anything else is treachery.
And here at last is the point regarding your question on the separation of Church and State.
I believe that the State has no right to make demands on my religion but my God has a say on me in all aspects of life. As a person who lives within the State, my beliefs necessarily dictate how I am to act in the State and what I think is fundamentally for the best of the people of the State. So I can rightly believe the Jew is human and note that this State’s belief is the aberration. If the State turns around and dictates that such a commitment is treachery since it betrays the State, then so let it be. My commitment to the Jew being human and the defense of his life is rather an indictment against the State. My beliefs commit me to supporting the State, any State in fact, in which I find myself but with the hope of getting the State to acknowledge a proper authority. I must defend the Jew as a human.
Your intolerant perspective is uncivil. Indeed, your position infringes on those that agree with the State at this stage.
Perhaps. But my position supports the life of those who are too weak to defend themselves and tries to protect the people of the State from the evil of doing what is horrendously wrong.
Away with you, Jew Sympathizer, and your damnable doctrine. Arrest this man!