Why Hitler was as powerful as a Religion

One topic that caught my attention in the article "Why do we Believe" by Robin Marantz Henig was the difference between secular and religious rituals. Marantz argues, citing to Stosis, that religious rituals are more powerful than secular rituals because they hinge on belief rather than proof. "The [religious] rituals are 'beyond the possibility of examination,' ... and a commitment to them is therefore emotional rather than logical -- a commitment that is, in Stosis's view, deeper and longer lasting." The argument explains, from and evolution standpoint, why vehicles that organize humans into communities developed as religious rituals and not secular rituals. I find this to be directly related to the concept of legitimacy of power, a topic covered in my Intro to Political Science class last term.

The idea of legitimacy suggests that any person in an authoritative role must have some trait, quality, or experience that people recognize and accept to be a reason to keep that person in power. The theory of the rationalization of authority is developed by Samuel Huntington in his book Political Order in Changing Societies. Huntington suggests that qualities from which rulers derive their legitimacy separate them into two groups, charismatic leaders and rational-legal leaders. A rational-legal leader is accepted by a constituency because he or she has proven themselves to be a good ruler. They have been successful in authoritative roles, and people accept them based on a logical evaluation of their abilities. A charismatic leader is accepted based on how people feel about the person. This distinction grants a charismatic leader an enormous amount of power compared to a rational-legal leader, because people are willing to act on their emotions as opposed to always making logical decisions.

The best example of the enormous power of a charismatic leader is Adolph Hitler. The German people elected Hitler based on the way he made them feel. His plans and promises were not backed up by any sort of experience or success he had previously had. It was Hitler’s ability to manipulate people’s emotions that lead to the horrors of World War II and the holocaust. People would not have religiously carried out Hitler’s evil as they did had they been thinking logically instead of emotionally.
I will conclude by suggesting that if one is to accept the existence of religion based on the arguments of Henig and Stosis in my first paragraph, it follows that religious rituals have triumphed ever secular ones for the same reason Hitler or other charismatic leaders have been able to control human beings. They both cater to human nature by deriving their power from emotions.