Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress

_{Mario Lopez

July 8, 2009

Darwinism, Ethics, Evolution, Human evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This should be interesting:

Book Description

In this book, Weikart helps unlock the mystery of Hitler’s evil by vividly demonstrating the surprising conclusion that Hitler’s immorality flowed from a coherent ethic. Hitler was inspired by evolutionary ethics to pursue the utopian project of biologically improving the human race. This ethic underlay or influenced almost every major feature of Nazi policy: eugenics (i.e., measures to improve human heredity, including compulsory sterilization), euthanasia, racism, population expansion, offensive warfare, and racial extermination.

More…

Comments

Lenoxus, "Effeminate is when talking about straight men acting weak." Well when I think of effeminate I think of a man having manerisms that are strikingly characteristic of a woman's. If you state that effeminate means straight men acting weak, you really offend a whole lot of people - women, effeminate men, and 'weak-acting" men of any sexual preference. Perhaps you should switch to a better label. I was rather taken aback by this. I know this is off topic, but I thought I'd point that out.CannuckianYankee_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT}

Stalin killed more people than Hitler, and he rejected Darwinism
According to the Bible, God killed more than the lot of them put together. He gets away with it, though, because he is "goodness" personified and the foundation of objective morality. Thus, genocide - or should that be something like 'bioticide' - on a planetary scale is a good thing. It is only bad when atheists try their hand at it. And atheists are accused of moral relativism?Seversky_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

Clive Hayden @ 293
I’ll answer if you don’t mind. Cats would be specially created if man were.
Speaking personally, I'd say that if anything were specially created it was cats. I'm pretty sure they think so, anywaySeversky_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT}

Stalin killed more people than Hitler, and he rejected Darwinism Nopetribune7_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

olearyfan -- since the second world war we have seen an increasing influence of science and secularism in Europe where I live, and I do not see any evidence whatsoever of the “moral decline” I don't know that secularists like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the late Oriana Fallaci would agree.tribune7_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT}

Gaz, ------"OK - so by your thinking, if you feed a small kitten into your waste disposal unit and switch it on, then that is not immoral because cats & kittens are not a special creation. Correct?" I'll answer if you don't mind. Cats would be specially created if man were.Clive Hayden_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

Mr DATCG, Morality could evolve or could not evolve? I think you should choose a position before you start arguing.Nakashima_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

Eugenics is Baaaaaaaaack, current today under a name called Science
this is just restoring science to its rightful place!!
There can be no evolved morality with unguided evoution.
BINGO!tsmith_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

Nakashima, You quote ScottAndrews... "If morality is an evolved behavior, then isn’t immorality also an evolved behavior?" then say, "I think you should be more explicit there in step two." Why? The statement stands solid. If moral behavior evolved, then so does pedophilia, rape, murder, incest, stealing, cheating on test at universities, cheating on published scientific papers, peeping Toms, corrupt politicians, failed housing projects with crooks and liars, adulterers, homosexuals, polygamist, beatiality, drugs addictions, alcoholism, etc., etc., ad infinitum. How much detail do you demand? If every part of us is evolution by unguided processes then immorality evolved as well as morality. You cannot judge either of these evolved behaivors as being wrong in society. Society itself thus has no right to invoke any judgement of anyone's evolved traits. SAndrews statement stands solid according to unguided evolution. This is why Eugenics, Margaret Sanger, Darwin's cousin Francis, China's Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Fidel, Chavez, etc., have every right in atheist systems to exercise their evolved powers over the weaker, less evolved. This is why China and India have a right to not participate in Global Warming consensus. The Chinese and Indians did not evolve mentally to do so. Only time will tell which mentally evolved species of human is correct. The species that evolved Global Warming Crisis traits, or those that evolved Don't Care traits. Since every thought is captive to unguided evolutionary processes, why does it matter? There can be no evolved morality with unguided evoution.DATCG_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Mr. Nakashima, We may be outraged at some moral offense (worst case scenario, a genocide.) But do we credit evolution with our sense of right and wrong and not also with the genocide? Or have we suddenly and conveniently discovered aspects of ourselves which did not evolve? Thus, both morality and genocide have the same root cause. The underlying behaviors evolved to further our survival. That makes our sense of right and wrong arbitrary. We can lock up the murderer, but it's for our own benefit. If he had his reasons, we can't really say he was wrong.ScottAndrews_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

Eungenics believer, Totalitarian population controls in the Obama Administration. John Holdren - Science Czar Sample quotes... "Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." The Hitlerian conclusions, the Mao-like pronunciations continue... "If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection." Eugenics is Baaaaaaaaack, current today under a name called Science! In todays Amdinistration. To be fair to Teh One, I'm sure he did not know he appointed a real Russian Czar. I hope O'Leary sees this. Eugenics never died in the far left agenda of Socialist state mantras.DATCG_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

Mr ScottAndrews, If morality is an evolved behavior, then isn’t immorality also an evolved behavior? I think you should be more explicit there in step two.Nakashima_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

olearyfan:
I don’t agree that morality is an “illusion”.
Fair enough. But surely the notion that we are obligated to obey any moral code is an illusion. If I can kill my neighbor, take his stuff, and dump his body without getting caught, who's to say that's wrong? If I benefit, that's good, right? I can give some of his stuff to my kids. Even better. If morality is an evolved behavior, then isn't immorality also an evolved behavior? We can incarcerate or execute the immoral for our own perceived benefit, but that's no more right or wrong than a virus invading or a blood cell defending. If we're animals then we're just animals.ScottAndrews_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

You should know that being an MA.
BTW..MS...not MA...tsmith_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

I said you were bearing false witness, tsmith. Time and time again you make absolute statements about what you claim other people say.
so you called me a liar first. you're wrong of course, but facts don't matter to darwinists, obviously.
It is perfectly reasonable to believe, on the basis of the available evidence, that the eye evolved. HOW it evolved is a different matter. “We do not know” is a perfectly acceptable answer
so you don't know, and your 'science' is nothing more than athiestic faith.
The inference that an intelligent designer might even be part of that understanding
not according to 'science'...ie evolutionary faith.
Go and pick any University history textbook on the rise of Nazism and the Hitler. Turn to the bibliography. Start there.
in other words ya got nothing...LOL..no surprise. Most of the historians I mentioned were also contemporaries of Hitler, they knew the era VERY well...
They are also not the place to hurl abuse and to accuse other of spewing “talking points” when that is all you have to offer yourself.
LOL at least I can name names and provide research and links that actually support my postion, instead of undermining it...tsmith_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

ScottAndrews: But if we are animals, then we really are just animals, and we should cast off our illusions of morality along with our mythologies.
I don't agree that morality is an "illusion". But I do agree that we need to consider carefully what morality is and what it isn't.
tsmith: eugenics does have a basis in science. I’ve posted plenty of proof, for any other than a darwiniac that is.
A scientific veneer does not science make.
look at who is complaining…re-read the posts, you called me a liar first, I believe…
I said you were bearing false witness, tsmith. Time and time again you make absolute statements about what you claim other people say.
and what does common descent have to do with listing the mutations that led to an eye???
Clearly science does not know this "list of mutations".
oh ok you take it on FAITH that the eye evolved….
It is perfectly reasonable to believe, on the basis of the available evidence, that the eye evolved. HOW it evolved is a different matter. "We do not know" is a perfectly acceptable answer. The inference that an intelligent designer might even be part of that understanding. You do remember intelligent design, tsmith? That is supposedly what this forum is here to discuss.
you haven’t answered what historians agree with you..remember???
Go and pick any University history textbook on the rise of Nazism and the Hitler. Turn to the bibliography. Start there. A friendly hint, tsmith... Internet forums are not the place to seek more than basic knowledge. You should know that being an MA. They are also not the place to hurl abuse and to accuse other of spewing "talking points" when that is all you have to offer yourself. It makes you look foolish.olearyfan_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

CY, Effeminate is when talking about straight men acting weak. It's not a sign of weakness if you act like a female if you are one, and it's not about gays either they have another motivation. Women aren't weaker than men in a mental sense. I'm talking about how Darwinism makes you think less of yourself and how this is one of the manifestations. KF, I disagree with you about Tsmith comments. I like sarcasm when it's on point.lamarck_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

olearyfan: you haven't answered what historians agree with you..remember???
The ones studied and taught at every major University department of history in the Western World really? well name names…how hard is this??? so SIR Arthur Keith was just a charlatan huh???
name names, don't be shy now!! don't worry, I won't hold my breath!! LOLtsmith_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

I have said at every turn that eugenics is wrong and has no basis in science. You appear to have some sort of problem of cognition
you have an 'excuse' problem...always giving one for darwin. and you're wrong, as repeatedly proven, eugenics does have a basis in science. I've posted plenty of proof, for any other than a darwiniac that is.
wonder, tsmith, if an evolutionist repeatedly called another poster a liar and used a pejorative term to refer to creationists… I wonder how long they would be allowed to post here…
look at who is complaining...re-read the posts, you called me a liar first, I believe... you post the POPE to defend science??? too funny. sorry I don't believe in common descent, and I don't really care if behe does or not. Don’t be absurd. If Michael Behe accepts most of common descent, why shouldn’t I? and what does common descent have to do with listing the mutations that led to an eye??? again you have to put up straw men to avoid the issue...try answering the question for once..but its obvious you can do no more than post talking points.
We know that the eye has evolved. How this happened, mechanistically, is beyond our knowledge. It might even be beyond our understanding
oh ok you take it on FAITH that the eye evolved....
But to pretend that organisms in the distant past did not have eyes, and that the ability to perceive light and then sight did not arise over billions of years, is simple stupidity, plain and simple
never said they didn't, another lie on your part...but its a darwiniac MO...so tell me how 'sight arose'...you can't...whats stupid is to pretend faith is science. Except rape is not justified in any modern morality in any culture. and that has what to do with the evolutionary basis of morality??? more straw men. I thought the problem was that atheists rejected much of your “morality” only when atheists get absolute power....see stalin, mao, pol pot, etc... you're not encumbered by honesty...guess thats a part of morality you forgot...tsmith_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

PS: OLF, I think you could do with a read of Vox Day here.kairosfocus_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

olearyfan,
If you cannot see the benefit of morality, tsmith, then I cannot help you. If you require a bearded-thunderer to tell you the difference between right and wrong, that is your problem not mine or anyone elses.
On the one hand, we have individuals who have evolved a sense of morality. We also have people who rape and kill and do as they please. They evolved that way, too. Looking at the same thing a different way, we have individuals who follow a deliberately instilled conscience and moral laws. We also have people who exercise their free will, disregard their conscience and morals, and rape, kill, etc. They look about the same side by side. The biggest difference is that any judgment against crime in the first scenario is arbitrary. Our moral code is an illusion. If someone rapes or kills and doesn't get caught, was it wrong? Morality simply becomes a viewpoint enforced upon others. If the majority decides to commit or permit genocide against a minority, who's to say they shouldn't? I am not citing this reasoning as evidence against Darwinism. It's not evidence of anything. Neither, in my opinion, is what Hitler or Darwin did or didn't believe. But if we are animals, then we really are just animals, and we should cast off our illusions of morality along with our mythologies.ScottAndrews_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

Onlookers: Unfortunately, and as TS has highlighted, most of the above responses by Darwinists show us the underlying problem of propagation of talking points rather than a considered reflection on serious issues and historical documents. For just one instance, I would like to see a serious darwinist exposition of what herr Schicklegruber et al meant by: >> In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. [That is, survival of the fittest, for food and for reproduction, including Darwinian sexual selection.] And struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development . . . >> Then, I would like to see the key distinction to be made between that and Darwin's: >> Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be applied, encroach on and replace one another, so that some finally become extinct? We shall see that all these questions, as indeed is obvious in respect to most of them, must be answered in the affirmative, in the same manner as with the lower animals . . . . Man is liable to numerous, slight, and diversified variations, which are induced by the same general causes, are governed and transmitted in accordance with the same general laws, as in the lower animals. Man has multiplied so rapidly, that he has necessarily been exposed to struggle for existence, and consequently to natural selection. He has given rise to many races, some of which differ so much from each other, that they have often been ranked by naturalists as distinct species . . . . At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. [NB: Despite some nive remarks on negro regiments in an 1873 letter, the above remarks stand unaltered int eh 1874 Edn of Descent, i.e it is plain that Darwin retained his same scientific views, and failed to address the moral hazard running through the middle of his work. So, as we study the ethical issues of science and society, we need to learn from that and to address relevant issues on the merits, however painful they must be.]>> That, we need to bear in mind onwards. Cheerio . . . GEM of TKI PS: Evolutionary materialism -- a la Lewontin et al -- is a world view that claims to be warranted by the findings of science. As a worldview, it must therefore address the issues of grounding mind and morality, or fail at he bar of comparative difficulties. That is the challenge I have posed above.kairosfocus_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

tsmith
LOL lying for darwin…too funny…is there ANY lengths you won’t go to justify evil?
I have said at every turn that eugenics is wrong and has no basis in science. You appear to have some sort of problem of cognition. I wonder, tsmith, if an evolutionist repeatedly called another poster a liar and used a pejorative term to refer to creationists... I wonder how long they would be allowed to post here...
have an MS (not in biology) so I understand a little about science…and evolution is just a fairy tale for atheists
You understand a little about science. <a href="Michael Behe: "Although those other explanations may be true, I think that common descent, guided by an intelligent agent, is sufficient to explain the data. It has the great advantage of being easily compatible with apparent genetic “mistakes” shared by organisms, such as the pseudo-hemoglobin genes I wrote of in The Edge of Evolution." Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith. I take it you are a creationist. Young Earth or Old Earth, I wonder?
ok, here prove your ’science’….tell me the exact mutations that led to an eye…IN ORDER…or better yet, take a bacteria and evolve it into a multi-cellular animal!! *cough* good luck *cough* *laugh*
Don't be absurd. If Michael Behe accepts most of common descent, why shouldn't I? I should also quote the wise words of Dr Dembski in this regard. I do not need to "match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories." We know that the eye has evolved. How this happened, mechanistically, is beyond our knowledge. It might even be beyond our understanding. But to pretend that organisms in the distant past did not have eyes, and that the ability to perceive light and then sight did not arise over billions of years, is simple stupidity, plain and simple.
another laughable darwiniac talking point…of course in an evolutionary framework rape would be perfectly fine in order to pass along your genes..
Except rape is not justified in any modern morality in any culture. (It's arguably justified in the ancient world and in the Bible, but that is a different matter). Hmmm... Perhaps all this morality and science is more difficult than you thought?
so much so that atheists have to steal our morality, since they are unable to come up with anything better.
I thought the problem was that atheists rejected much of your "morality"? Gosh, now I am confused. Not as confused as you are, but then it appears that I'm not encumbered by your ignorance and rudeness either.olearyfan_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus: after that last post of olearyfan, the sarcasm is well deserved. the very monikor of him/hers is sarcastic...tsmith_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

TS: Pardon a quiet note. Please, tone down on sarcasm etc. (UD does not need a flame war.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

“Grand” in context means large and immense. it does not mean “good”.
LOL lying for darwin...too funny...is there ANY lengths you won't go to justify evil? your own posts prove how foolish your ideas are....too funny!!
What exactly are your qualifications in evolutionary science
I have an MS (not in biology) so I understand a little about science...and evolution is just a fairy tale for atheists. ok, here prove your 'science'....tell me the exact mutations that led to an eye...IN ORDER...or better yet, take a bacteria and evolve it into a multi-cellular animal!! *cough* good luck *cough* *laugh*
If you cannot see the benefit of morality, tsmith, then I cannot help you
LOL...more darwiniac 'logic' duck the question, put up a straw man!!
I can only assume mr tsmith, that if you lost whatever religion you had, that you would immediately rush out and rape and steal and murder and plunder.
another laughable darwiniac talking point...of course in an evolutionary framework rape would be perfectly fine in order to pass along your genes.. Of course, only Christians can be moral so much so that atheists have to steal our morality, since they are unable to come up with anything better.tsmith_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

tsmith
did you read what you posted???
"Grand" in context means large and immense. it does not mean "good". "Utopian" means unattainable. Your inability to read in context is remarkable.
evolution IS bad science…tell that to planned parenthood…
What exactly are your qualifications in evolutionary science, Mr. tsmith, that you are so qualified to cast judgement upon it? *cough* Dunning-Kruger *cough*
another dodge…do darwiniacs ever think through an issue, or is parroting talking points all you can do…again what is the basis of morality in evolution???
One question mark at a time is quite sufficient, tsmith. Morality exists. It provides great benefits to society. Without it, we would not have societies. Without it, we would not have reached the Moon, or created the Internet. Without it, we would not be having this discussion. If you cannot see the benefit of morality, tsmith, then I cannot help you. If you require a bearded-thunderer to tell you the difference between right and wrong, that is your problem not mine or anyone elses. I can only assume mr tsmith, that if you lost whatever religion you had, that you would immediately rush out and rape and steal and murder and plunder. Of course, you could actually take the time to read up on the history and development of ethics. If you liked.
of course ’science’ is good pure and holy…right.
Of course not. It is a human endeavour and it as open to misuse as any other human endeavor.
the very one…perhaps if europe hadn’t ditched its christianity, and its guts, they wouldn’t have let in the muslims to colonize their countries in the name of ‘multiculturalism’ and perhaps they would have actually cared for those old people left to die in the heat wave….
Of course, only Christians can be moral. All. Science. So. Far.olearyfan_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

We do have a letter from Darwin to Galton expressing his scepticism over the concept of controlled social breeding in human beings.
did you read what you posted???
Though I see so much difficulty, the object seems a grand one; and you have pointed out the sole feasible, yet I fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving the human race. I should be inclined to trust more (and this is part of your plan) to disseminating and insisting on the importance of the all-important principle of inheritance

. It was always based on bad science, and it has been thoroughly rejected for decades.
evolution IS bad science...tell that to planned parenthood...
Which part of Intelligent Design requires me to believe that Hitler arose directly from the work of Charles Darwin
reading is fundamental. so whether darwin was around at the time galton founded the eugenics society is of little matter...and of course his son Leonard took over as its head after Galton.
The ones studied and taught at every major University department of history in the Western World
really? well name names...how hard is this??? so SIR Arthur Keith was just a charlatan huh???
So you are an expert in science, evolution, and even ethics
another dodge...do darwiniacs ever think through an issue, or is parroting talking points all you can do...again what is the basis of morality in evolution???
I think, of the evils which occur when when we reject science in favour of ideology.
of course 'science' is good pure and holy...right.
The chap murdered by a mob of young muslims?
the very one...perhaps if europe hadn't ditched its christianity, and its guts, they wouldn't have let in the muslims to colonize their countries in the name of 'multiculturalism' and perhaps they would have actually cared for those old people left to die in the heat wave....tsmith_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

tsmith
of course, the darwiniacs desperate attempts to deny and discredit ANYTHING which puts darwin in a bad light mean nothing…right.
I can only say again that I do not see *anyone* pretending that Darwin was anything more than a human being with human failings. We do have a letter from Darwin to Galton expressing his scepticism over the concept of controlled social breeding in human beings. The eugenics movement arose after Darwin's death. It was vigourously supported by many religious bodies, especially in the USA. It was always based on bad science, and it has been thoroughly rejected for decades.
this just shows how little you know about ID. and you cannot divorce the ’social’ part of evolution from the theory…sorry.
Which part of Intelligent Design requires me to believe that Hitler arose directly from the work of Charles Darwin?
the ADL is a LIBERAL political organization….
I really am not sure how to answer that.
please…and uh who are these ‘consensus’ of historians???
The ones studied and taught at every major University department of history in the Western World?
there is no evolutionary basis for right and wrong…only survival matters…and whatever is used to survive is justified.
So you are an expert in science, evolution, and even ethics? My goodness. Is there no beginning to your talents? (I jest.)
Marx wrote that Darwin’s book ‘contains the basis in natural history for our views.’ and wasn’t stalin a marxist???
It is quite possible to accept evolution without being a marxist. As regards Satlin, I grant you his promotion of Lysenko was more a rejection of Mendelian genetics than the theory of natural selection... But that is rather as example, I think, of the evils which occur when when we reject science in favour of ideology.
tell that to Ilan Halimi
The chap murdered by a mob of young muslims? (Maybe they weren't practising muslims. Would it have made them less likely to attack a young Jewish man if they had been practising muslims?)
r the tens of thousands who perished during a heat wave in france a few years back
So that was Darwin's fault too? the bastard!olearyfan_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

second world war we have seen an increasing influence of science and secularism in Europe where I live, and I do not see any evidence whatsoever of the “moral decline”
tell that to Ilan Halimi or the tens of thousands who perished during a heat wave in france a few years back because everyone else was on vacation... c'est la vivetsmith_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 11 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply