Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Invitations to Hitler Connections

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

One of the worst things about one side making connections to Hitler is it invites return fire of the same kind. This should be filed under the category “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”.

How many of you knew that beloved evangelical Christian minister Jerry Falwell shared Adolf Hitler’s views about the importance of maintaining the purity of the white race?

I’m not saying “modern” evangelicals feel this way, any more than “modern” Darwinist are that way, but… as long as we’re dredging up the past of one side it’s only fair to dredge up the other’s too.

Addendum: No one seems to have picked up on the point that Falwell, as an evangelical Christian biblical literalist, did not believe in “Darwinism” yet he still shared his racial thinking with Hitler. Further proof that you don’t need Darwin to be a racist.

From The Nation “Agent of Intolerance”

Decades before the forces that now make up the Christian right declared their culture war, Falwell was a rabid segregationist who railed against the civil rights movement from the pulpit of the abandoned backwater bottling plant he converted into Thomas Road Baptist Church. This opening episode of Falwell’s life, studiously overlooked by his friends, naïvely unacknowledged by many of his chroniclers, and puzzlingly and glaringly omitted in the obituaries of the Washington Post and New York Times, is essential to understanding his historical significance in galvanizing the Christian right. Indeed, it was race–not abortion or the attendant suite of so-called “values” issues–that propelled Falwell and his evangelical allies into political activism.

As with his positions on abortion and homosexuality, the basso profondo preacher’s own words on race stand as vivid documents of his legacy. Falwell launched on the warpath against civil rights four years after the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision to desegregate public schools with a sermon titled “Segregation or Integration: Which?”

“If Chief Justice Warren and his associates had known God’s word and had desired to do the Lord’s will, I am quite confident that the 1954 decision would never have been made,” Falwell boomed from above his congregation in Lynchburg. “The facilities should be separate. When God has drawn a line of distinction, we should not attempt to cross that line.”

Falwell’s jeremiad continued: “The true Negro does not want integration…. He realizes his potential is far better among his own race.” Falwell went on to announce that integration “will destroy our race eventually. In one northern city,” he warned, “a pastor friend of mine tells me that a couple of opposite race live next door to his church as man and wife.”

As pressure from the civil rights movement built during the early 1960s, and President Lyndon Johnson introduced sweeping civil rights legislation, Falwell grew increasingly conspiratorial. He enlisted with J. Edgar Hoover to distribute FBI manufactured propaganda against the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and publicly denounced the 1964 Civil Rights Act as “civil wrongs.”

Comments
----DLH: "Lutepisc at 90 Well put. * Critical to preserving democratic republics is an educated citizenry. * Critical to preventing tyrants from taking over is to distinguish tyranny from good government. Unless we expose the history of tyranny, how can we distinguish it from god government?" I agree totally, and I would add this amendment. We should be critical of any belief system, religious or secular, which denies the "inherent dignity of the human person. NeoDarwinism should not take all the heat. Any tyranny should be condemned, including Nazisim, Communism, or for that matter, Sharia law.StephenB
April 25, 2008
April
04
Apr
25
25
2008
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
While there might not be a logical connection between Darwin's ideas and eugenics, there may be a chain of applying his ideas, even if wrongly, that led to the idea of eugenics. The fact that his relatives were actively involved is indicative of something. The ideas of selective breeding have been with us a long time in the form of not sanctioning the marrying outside of one's class/race. There is a long history. Much of it amongst the upper classes was economic or political as arranged marriages were common amongst nobility but a good part of it was the belief that nobility had better characteristics that should be preserved in the children of the marriage. Certainly Darwin seemed to harbor such thoughts and so did many others in Victorian England. Here is what Marvin Olasky said on Dinesh D'Souza's tothesource web site about this issue in Expelled. "The real question is: Did Darwinism bulwark Hitlerian hatred by providing a scientific rationale for killing those considered less fit in the struggle for survival? The answer to that question is an unambiguous yes. When I stalked the stacks of the Library of Congress in the early 1990s, I saw and scanned shelf upon shelf of racist and anti-Semitic journals from the first several decades of the last century, with articles frequently citing and applying Darwin. If you read an anti-Expelled review that dodges the issue of substance by concentrating merely on style, you'll be seeing another sign of closed minds. "jerry
April 25, 2008
April
04
Apr
25
25
2008
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
Lutepisc at 90 Well put. * Critical to preserving democratic republics is an educated citizenry. * Critical to preventing tyrants from taking over is to distinguish tyranny from good government. Unless we expose the history of tyranny, how can we distinguish it from god government? Thus Ben Stein is performing a critically important service by exposing the links from Darwinism to totalitarianism. Expelled is equally important in exposing the totalitarian activities of the current Darwinian oligarchy. Unless the light is shone on it and action taken, it will never be turned back.DLH
April 25, 2008
April
04
Apr
25
25
2008
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
Dave, regarding the Darwinism > eugenics > Nazism links, you’ve maintained that “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” I respectfully disagree. Rude has been making a more persuasive point: rather than conspiring to keep silent about the historic roots of the Holocaust lest our own oxen get gored, humanity would be better served by a courageous and forthright examination of the root causes. If my ox gets gored, so be it. We have hardly begun to look into the mirror of this event, let alone describe what we see there. When genocide takes place in Rwanda or Darfur, for example, we can dismiss it as the primitive behavior of uncivilized people. But the Holocaust hits too close to home. The technologically sophisticated methods, the efficient record-keeping and processing of people, the creepy familiarity of its rationales all overlap disturbingly with our own existence. When I visited Dachau many years ago, one of the most disturbing images I walked away with was the gleaming newness of the stainless steel ovens. I am a baby boomer, so the Holocaust happened before I was born. But somehow I had located it in my mind back in the mists of prehistory or the darkness of the middle ages. The newness of the ovens jarringly explained to me how wrong I was. It could have happened within my lifetime. When I told this to a rabbi friend of mine, he said that some Jews say that Western civilization has already forgotten about the Holocaust. That was prior to the establishment of the U.S. Holocaust Museum, the Shoah Project, and other undertakings to help us remember. I think that placing it back somewhere in history where it’s irrelevant is the same sort of defensive maneuver which we make by pointing the finger at some “other” group of people. It gets “us” off the hook. Psychologists after WW II tried to explain the whole phenomenon in terms of “the authoritarian personality,” which tended to comply and follow orders without questioning. This, some researchers assumed, must be a trait of the German people who allowed such a thing to happen in their midst. This whole notion was blown out of the water by Stanley Milgram’s famous experiments, which showed that most people (i.e., “normal people”), under the right circumstances, will comply with authority and inflict pain on others in violation of their conscience. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment All of us live in glass houses on this one, I’m afraid. The question is, as Rude poses, will we have the courage to understand the rivulets and streams leading to the Holocaust in spite of that? Or not?Lutepisc
April 25, 2008
April
04
Apr
25
25
2008
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
-----Bob O'H: Don’t forget, he was not in this alone. He had henchmen all around him, and we know for a fact that all of them, Galton especially, were committed Darwinists. You are right of course. What I meant to say was especially Galton's disciples. They reinvented Galton's eugenics.StephenB
April 25, 2008
April
04
Apr
25
25
2008
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
StephenB @ 81 -
Don’t forget, he was not in this alone. He had henchmen all around him, and we know for a fact that all of them, Galton especially, were committed Darwinists.
Eh? Galton was one of Hitler's henchmen? Sorry, but if you want to be taken seriously, you can't just make stuff up: Galton died in 1911.Bob O'H
April 24, 2008
April
04
Apr
24
24
2008
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT
DaveScot (79): "According to Hitler himself in public speech he’s a Catholic." More from Hitler's [private] Table Talk:
The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. ... Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. ... [I]t's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble... ... Methods of persuasion of a moral order are not an effective weapon against those who despise the truth -- when we have to do with priests, for example, of a Church who know that everything about it is based on lies, and who live by it... You don't imagine I can convert the Holy Father. One does not persuade a man who's the head of such a gigantic concern to give it up. It's his livelihood! ... The final state must be: in St. Peter's chair, a senile officiant; facing him, a few sinister old women, as gaga and as poor in spirit as anyone could wish. ... The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light, and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity. ... Pure Christianity -- the Christianity of the catacombs -- is concerned with translating the Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind.
__________ Borne, thanks for the further explantion re: polyphyletic.j
April 24, 2008
April
04
Apr
24
24
2008
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
DaveScot:
"in the same way that killing is a logical conclusion of a religious world view."
Dave it's seems it's getting worse and worse as you dig in to defend yourself here. You're sounding more and more like Dick Dawkins!
"I mean, if everyone has life everlasting and when the die ..., then logically you do someone a favor when you kill them as you’re delivering them to paradise."
Maybe think over what you wrote there with a little less angst? You're saying that if everyone goes to heaven after death (no Xian branch I know of says that universalists) then life isn't worth living, life has no purpose and life sucks, therefore a selfish desire for personal well-being with no trials or troubles is the best thing heaven has to offer. Freedom from problems and suffering is hardly what heaven is all about. It's sad so many religious types speak of it that way. Heaven and hell are both consequences of personal choices - something like vacations and prison.
"Heaven offers nothing that a mercenary soul can desire"
CS Lewis
"I’m saying that Darwinism as a necessary condition is utter bullshit an unreasonable conclusion"
Agreed. However, Darwinism was, as historical fact, a key element of Hitler's views and actions. You don't need Darwin to be racist any more than to be a blodd sucking eugenicist. But he sure helped clear the way in that his 'scientific' theory logically and simply leads to the devaluation of human life and the view that some are superior humans and others inferior - survival of the fittest and all. There have been 1000's of Hitlers in history long before Darwin. But ours was definietly linked to Darwinism.
"You’d think the basic “thou shalt not kill” and Jesus “love thy neighbor” and “turn the other cheek” would have made the Christian position on war and killing quite clear but I’m afraid actions speak louder than words and by that measure Christianity is no religion of peace."
"Do no murder" is the right translation there. But here you're going off the deep end imo. If by peace you mean, perfect pacifism, then you're right. Unfortunately, this idealist view of peace here is both erroneous and ludicrous in a world wherein free will rules and thus evil exists. Is that the kind of peace you mention? At any cost to freedom and the rape of justice? Is that the kind of "peace and love" you would exercise if someone invaded your home to put you and your family into brutal slavery, rape...? Forgive me to doubt it. It is the right and the duty of a man to defend himself and his family, and that unto death if such need be - and you know this. So it is also the right of nations. It cannot be otherwise in a free world wherein not everyone is going to choose to be peaceable or loving to their neighbor. Otherwise why not disarm the police? Why not then get rid of the military all together? Sounds great but cannot and should not happen until men are either no longer free or no longer selfish. Should we also tear down all the prisons? No longer punish any crimes? Be careful there Dave, your reasoning is going to far off on a tangent.
"I think Hitler was a Catholic."
There is a huge difference by professing to be catholic (or anything else) and actually being one. Hitler's god was not a personal someone but a something. As cited by j above : "God (that is to say, the dominion of natural laws throughout the whole universe)." Sound like catholic to you? See j's last response as well. Btw, do you really trust wikipedia for anything? I strongly suggest you go look at the Nuremburg trials records here. Notice the 1st installation : "The Nazi Master Plan: The Persecution of the Christian Churches" - Yes Dave, Hitler was a genuine catholic!! Sheesh.
"I believe in many Christian denominations a deathbed conversion or confession is all you need to get into heaven."
Do you really think God is such a dupe? That he does not examine the heart motives in all things? And then grant pardon to those who are sincere in change of heart and grant nothing to those who see him as an easy ticket out of prison - hell - the asylum of the universe for the criminally insane? Apparently some religious people do. But they can never support such a view by the teachings of Christ.
"...the get out of jail free card? Talk about counter-productive messages to give out. Do what you want, it’s all good, God will forgive you no matter what."
I agree. And thankfully that is not the message given by Christ at all! Fortunately though, for us, there is one aspect of that which is true - Upon a sincere change of heart, from an ultimate motive of serving self to a new motive of unselfish living for the highest good of all, such a free pardon can be received and is in fact offered to all mankind. That is what the death of Christ is all about. Providing a fully legal method of both satisfying the demands of the Moral Law and it's sanctions, while granting pardon to repentant criminals who have violated that law. His was a substitutionary death. His perfect life offered in place of the execution of the penalty of the law upon virtually the whole of mankind. Take yer pick. Governors have the power to grant pardons. God far more so. But only upon certain conditions and only because the demands of public justice were already met by Christ. Then you accuse God of genocide in the flood. Fine, rant on like Dawkins. But read this, "Gen 6:5 The LORD saw how evil humans had become on the earth. All day long their deepest thoughts were nothing but evil." Sounds pretty bad to me. And after 120 years of patience in attempting to change those hearts, without success...well... Sorry to break the news to you but any true God being has rights over his creations. And the right to terminate a created thing, upon certain perpetuated violations of moral law, is one of them. Nothing God does is arbitrary, unwise or unjust. Otherwise God is no more God. No ruler can allow perpetuated rebellion (rape, murder, incest, lying, fraud, etc...) to persist in his state with impunity.Borne
April 24, 2008
April
04
Apr
24
24
2008
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
(Except for Quirk's exception) Haeckel may be the key link from Darwin to Hitler. Jack Cashill observes: Expelled' goes easy on Darwin-Nazi link
Born in Potsdam in 1834, Haeckel read Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" in the summer it was first published in German, 1860, and fell immediately under its sway. He could see straight off that Darwin offered a useful exit strategy from a God-dominated cosmos. Once liberated, Haeckel created his own secular religion called "Monism." Not lacking for confidence, he imagined Monism as nothing less than a unified, naturalistic understanding of the entire universe. "The modern science of evolution has shown that there never was any such creation," claims Haeckel of the Judeo-Christian tradition, "but that the universe is eternal and the law of substance all-ruling." In his 1971 book, "The Scientific Origins of National Socialism," Dr. Daniel Gasman of John Jay College shows the "decisive" role that Haeckel played in the development of the German "Volkish" movement, a revival of pre-Christian German culture and spiritualism that found its eventual ecological outlet in the Holocaust. As it happens, many of the most influential Volkish spokesmen were tied in with either Haeckel or his Monist followers. These were the semi-respectable zanies that found common cause in National Socialism, and they were problem enough. But it was in the field of eugenics and racial science that Haeckel had the most direct and lethal impact. Germany's leading advocates of racial anthropology and eugenics, notes Gasman, "were deeply and consciously indebted to Haeckel for many, if not for most, of their ideas." . . . Haeckel had, in fact, inspired Hitler and Hitler's Germany with Darwin's cosmology, the story of the world as told by nature. For Haeckel and Hitler both, Gasman writes, "The great defect of modern Western society was that man was in constant violation of nature." Given this perspective, it should not surprise that Nazi and proto-Nazi propaganda depicted Jews as pollutants: Poisoning wells, drinking blood, spreading disease and, ultimately, defiling the Aryan race. . . .
See full articleDLH
April 24, 2008
April
04
Apr
24
24
2008
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2008/03/godwins-darwin.html {DLH points to: Godwin's Darwin By Allen MacNeill March 29, 2008 }Allen_MacNeill
April 24, 2008
April
04
Apr
24
24
2008
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
Is Godwin’s Law meant to say, “Thou shalt not investigate the historical background of the Nazis!”? The Wikipedia article notes, “The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.” By and large it has been the political left that frivolously throws around epithets like Hitler and Nazi. After all we are constantly told that Nazism was a movement of the right. The same can be said for the term fascism—it is incessantly leveled at American conservatives. Finally an American conservative, Jonah Goldberg, has addressed this phenomenon with a book, Liberal Fascism, that looks into the origins of the movement. I heartily recommend it. Now of course not all of us are all that interested in history—which is OK—but that does not mean that resistence is futile before the secular materialism that grips the academy except in "science". History is important and at least some sound minds should be studying it because, as George Santayana (a Darwinist, by the way) is oft quoted as saying, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."Rude
April 24, 2008
April
04
Apr
24
24
2008
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT
Dave Scott, I've watched you over the past days take up the argument you have. I hate it all, and can very easily disagree with you (and, I feel that I can just as easily support my disagreement) but I am frankly too grateful that you are doing what you are doing. Religion has some growing up to do. PWLIGHSNTS!Upright BiPed
April 24, 2008
April
04
Apr
24
24
2008
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
Dave, Hitler abandoned Catholicism, when he was a child. Everyone knows that he was a demagogue and would say or do anything to gain and hold power. You seem to take this idea seriously that he really was a believer. In fact, he was not. He hated Christianity in all its forms. Don’t forget, he was not in this alone. He had henchmen all around him, and we know for a fact that all of them, Galton especially, were committed Darwinists. Clearly, they were all on the same page, ideologically and strategically. So, you can’t credibly play the Catholic card. You seem to think that his disingenuous public pronouncements about religion should be taken as seriously as the atheism that informed the whole bunch of them. Make no mistake, this was an atheist enterprise. That fact is more than confirmed by the fact that Hitler also admired and revered Nietzsche, the fierce anti-Christian philosopher who was famous for his doctrine of “will to power.” In truth, Nietzsche probably influenced Hitler even more than Darwin. Bottom line: Hitler was Nietzsche first and Darwin second. His henchmen were Darwinists through and through. Not one of them took Catholicism or Christianity seriously.StephenB
April 24, 2008
April
04
Apr
24
24
2008
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
Is the flood “genocide” the “Worst”? Or “most effective”? Or “best” - morality based? I always wondered that. Why didn't God just snap His fingers, kill everyone instantly except Noah etc, and be done with it? Why subject the whole of humanity (and all animals) to the terror of the fast-raising waters, the mad rush to high ground, the horror of seeing everything destroyed and their loved ones drowning like rats? Inscrutable, isn't it?Andrea
April 24, 2008
April
04
Apr
24
24
2008
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
WinglesS I checked up on the Hitler is a Catholic claim. According to Hitler himself in public speech he's a Catholic. You can make a decent case that Hitler coveted the way churches could rally people around a dogma and get them to support things they normally wouldn't support. In that fashion religion provided a governing framework (faith/worship based). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_beliefs#Public_statements
At one point he described his religious status: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."[14] Hitler never formally ended his church membership, but according to Albert Speer, "he had no real attachment to it."[15] Mein Kampf, published in 1925-26, before his rise to power, displays a more ambivalent attitude. In an attempt to justify Nazi intolerance he recommends militantism, which he associates with the rise of Christianity over the old pagan religions. He referred to Christianity as "the first spiritual terror", as a model for the Nazis in their pursuit of power, while simultaneously lamenting the demise of what he calls "the far freer ancient world" before Christianity. [16]
I hope you're beginning to see why people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Linking to Hitler - it's too easy to do and too intellectually bankrupt to bother with. Any reasonable discussion is over once the Nazi card is played. Godwin's Law.DaveScot
April 24, 2008
April
04
Apr
24
24
2008
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
DaveScott at 69 Is the flood "genocide" the "Worst"? Or "most effective"? Or "best" - morality based?DLH
April 24, 2008
April
04
Apr
24
24
2008
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
Interesting how Darwin as a Nazi necessity continues to rankle. Are we saying that historians should not ask what ideas and cultural currents led to the Holocaust? Are we supposed to assume that it was a storm that just blew up out of nowhere for no reason? Are we to believe its roots are so complex that we cannot study them? Is it OK to trace the roots of anti-Semitism to Christian bigotry but taboo to see a connection between Darwin and eugenics? Just imagine what the world would be like if Christians had never introspected on the fanatical excesses of their faith, and then compare the mass of so-called “moderates” of that other Abrahamic faith who cannot bring themselves to introspect on their immoderate present. Materialists too refuse to contemplate the negative consequences of their philosophy. The human heart is capable of unlimited evil, an evil which can be exacerbated or mitigated by ideology. The ideology that you need to fear is the one that cannot introspect on where its excesses might lead or have already led. I have read Richard Weikart’s excellent From Darwin to Hitler—the response should not be, “Well, what about the Bible?” Judeo-Christians have long wrestled with the divine command to drive out or exterminate the Canaanite—it is never an excuse for any subsequent genocide or mistreatment. Confronted with the argument that the misfortune to befall our fellow man was God ordained, an American President would once quote the Bible, “The Almighty has his own purposes. ‘Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!’” What we don’t need is the pretence that all that is at stake is “science”. Science is at issue because materialism has been redefined as “science”—the real war is the culture war. Ben Stein is absolutely right to open this discussion. That he puts his finger on a sore spot is all the better, for who wants to be further lulled into complacency as Civilization itself teeters on the brink of collapse?Rude
April 24, 2008
April
04
Apr
24
24
2008
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
So some self-proclaimed Christians have been racists and genocidial imperialists—and so have some self-proclaimed followers of the gospel of the survival of the fittest. That’s the calculus? Whoopee! The first one’s old news; the academy’s been peddling that jive ever since BU got Zinned. (And some people, it seems, just can’t stop Zinning.) But conceding the link between Darwin and Hitler? Now, that’s news. St Charles descends from Olympus; “human progress” loses some of its glow; that smirk on the face of your sociology professor takes on a different connotation.allanius
April 24, 2008
April
04
Apr
24
24
2008
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
j : "Thanks for the explanation, but what I was getting at is, what did Hitler write or say that makes use of the modifier, polyphyletic, necessary?" I don't know if he did. I'd have to read his stuff more carefully. My point is merely to distinguish between what Darwin preached and what neo-Darwinists preach. I noticed the poly/mono difference several years ago when debating Darwinism's influences and lendings to racism. I noticed that while some Darwinists still believe humans evolved from many branches of apes, most believed that only one branch led to humans. (And that is supposedly backed up by DNA evidence now.) Meaning that, in their view at least, one could not derive a racist (inferior/superior) view from neo-Darwinism in which all humans came from a single "equal" branch. I hope that clarifies it better. I'm not a biologist and, in fact, thought I had invented the words poly/mono phyletic until I actually found them used in some Darwinist writings with the same meaning.Borne
April 24, 2008
April
04
Apr
24
24
2008
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
I think Hitler was a Catholic. I believe in many Christian denominations a deathbed conversion or confession is all you need to get into heaven. So your thesis about being willing to go to hell holds no water. Choose the right religion and you have a get-out-of-jail-free card to use anytime you need it. And isn’t that just a peachy good thing for people to believe - i.e. the get out of jail free card? Talk about counter-productive messages to give out. Do what you want, it’s all good, God will forgive you no matter what.
Perhaps you should do some research into the statement "Hitler was a Catholic." If you mean born into a Catholic background I'll give you that, but besides that I can't honestly give you alot more ground on that issue. That's an interesting assertion you mmake, that my argument holds no water. Ask any Christian if a confession is a license to be immoral. Shoot someone today, say sorry tomorrow, rinse and repeat. What an easygoing religion indeed, I wonder why any Christian should feel the need to chance his/her lifestyle if this were the case, if confessing with empty words is enough for a God. No Church would deny the possibility of a deathbed confession, I'll give you that too, but whether or not these were genuine is another issue.WinglesS
April 24, 2008
April
04
Apr
24
24
2008
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
Wingless I admit that it would be logical if you are willing to go to hell for it. I think Hitler was a Catholic. I believe in many Christian denominations a deathbed conversion or confession is all you need to get into heaven. So your thesis about being willing to go to hell holds no water. Choose the right religion and you have a get-out-of-jail-free card to use anytime you need it. And isn't that just a peachy good thing for people to believe - i.e. the get out of jail free card? Talk about counter-productive messages to give out. Do what you want, it's all good, God will forgive you no matter what. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.DaveScot
April 24, 2008
April
04
Apr
24
24
2008
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
I think the Darwin/Hitler relationship will be a moot point when all is said and done, thus I don't empahsize the topic, but neither do I encourage complete silence on the matter. Berlinski pointed out Himmler probably rejected common descent from apes of the German races. Maybe Hitler too...The Nazis did not necessarily have the most self-consistent body of ideas.... The Nazis might not easily be pegged as traditional Darwinists.....the argument for a Darwin/Hitler link even if true is muddled in confusion...I prefer clearer arguments. If one puts genocide on the table one must be ready to explain the practice of extermination of Caananites by the Jews in the Old Testament, not to mention God exterminating countless millions himself in favor of "the chosen race". And what about God cursing Ham's descendants? I believe in the Old Testament, but why venture needlessly into difficult territory? I'm not saying one can't discuss these issues, but it seems to lead to irresolution and distraction at best.... I do think Provine's appearance in the film was powerful. He linked the non-Design world view to a worldview that lacked ultimate meaning for life and morality. Stein used Provine's statement to lead into the description of a society governed by a comparable world view in Nazi Germany. Whether the Nazis actually used Darwin's writings is less important than the fact that at least on the big screen, Stein showed the Nazi's echoing Provine's "no morality, no meaning" non-Design world view..... Whether Darwin's writing was responsible or not for Nazi Germany is secondary to the problem posed by the devaluation of human life which is the tendency of non-Design world views. Witness the Eric Piankas and Peter Singers of the world....scordova
April 24, 2008
April
04
Apr
24
24
2008
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
If I may give my thoughts about this issue, such as they are. No doubt exists that several times throughout history, one group of people have held sway over others and have attempted to exterminate them (with or without Natural Selection). However,the people of the Third Reich were scientifically astute. They knew that simple extermination was morally repugnant, but they could use science. However, it was scientifically advantageous using Natural Selection to increase the racial purity of their people. The pre-war German literature is filled with much consideration of racial purity. Culturally dead, but scientifically astute, the regime instituted the national will of survival of the fittest.pwieland
April 24, 2008
April
04
Apr
24
24
2008
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
Davescot
Perhaps you and others should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War_theory This is about all the ways that killing is justified within Christianity. You’d think the basic “thou shalt not kill” and Jesus “love thy neighbor” and “turn the other cheek” would have made the Christian position on war and killing quite clear but I’m afraid actions speak louder than words and by that measure Christianity is no religion of peace.
Firstly you did not actually reply to me. And what's with "the others" as if I had some agenda against you or something. I'm giving what I believe to be a reasonable perspective on what I percieve as your over the top assertions that it is logical to kill people in a religious wordlview. I'll assume that you mean Christian worldview because the term religious is too broad and judging from your arguments, you are refering to the Christian worldview. Firstly, you assert that it is logical to kill people as they have eternal life and thus will go to heaven. I admit that it would be logical if you are willing to go to hell for it. Secondly you assert, completely ignoring your previous argument that people you kill go to heaven, (I assume) that to kill does not mean you need to go to hell, as long as you do it in God's name. However this argument is poor in the light of your previous argument becuase it is not possible to kill a person with eternal life in God's name in the Christian worldview. Now without admiting the flaws in your previous argument you bring up some wikipedia article like all 10th grade Evolutionists (not intended as ad hominem) like to do when they want to show that Evolution is "proven" and tell me that killing can be justified in the name of Christianity. But so what? It's not going to grant you eternal life. Moreover according to your referenced wikipedia article, Secular humanists may accept just war theory based on universal ethics without reference to Christian morality, so how is this necessarily a consequence of a religious (Christian) worldview? And since you seem to have a "me verses them" metality. (which in my opinion is paranoia in this case) I never did agree with the statement "Eugenics is the logical conclusion of a Darwinist world view." And in fact I would say it requires another goal, that of human genetic progress to be logically sound. Moreover I said that such a goal can be achieved using genetic engineering as well.WinglesS
April 24, 2008
April
04
Apr
24
24
2008
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
Junkyard What about God killing almost the entire human race in The Great Flood? Talk about genocidal... if true it's the worst campaign of genocide in the history of the world.DaveScot
April 24, 2008
April
04
Apr
24
24
2008
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
Wingless Perhaps you and others should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War_theory This is about all the ways that killing is justified within Christianity. You'd think the basic "thou shalt not kill" and Jesus "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" would have made the Christian position on war and killing quite clear but I'm afraid actions speak louder than words and by that measure Christianity is no religion of peace.DaveScot
April 24, 2008
April
04
Apr
24
24
2008
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
Or what about Genghis Khan killing millions of Chinese peasants merely out of contempt, or the Assyrians skinning alive every male inhabitant of a conquered city. Good going, Darwin.JunkyardTornado
April 24, 2008
April
04
Apr
24
24
2008
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT
Opps I quoted the wrong post. The correct quote is:
Not at all. It just has to be killing done in God’s name. Look at all the wars and all the people who fought in them. What about all the soldiers who killed in order to defeat Hitler? Surely you’re not saying they all believed they were going to hell for it, are you? Anyway getting back to the everyone has eternal life statement it isn't true for Christianity as far as I know. So my argument applies: That defeats your original argument that the people you kill have everlasting life, and thus you should kill them. If the people you kill have everlasting life then it cannot be possible to kill them in God’s name. If you kill them in God’s name then it’s not going to grant you everlasting life, unless you’re talking about Islam perhaps.
WinglesS
April 24, 2008
April
04
Apr
24
24
2008
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT
jehu If Darwin was a necessary condition for eugenics then what inspired the anti-miscegenation laws that were on the books in the colonies and later the United Statesw 200 years before Darwin's birth? No one has answered this question and I've asked it about 10 times now. Clearly, Darwin is not a necessary condition for eugenics. All it takes to get eugenics rolling is good old fashioned bigotry and hatred for one group of people different from another group of people. This kind of behavior has plagued the human race, and lots of other species of animal, since the dawn of time.DaveScot
April 24, 2008
April
04
Apr
24
24
2008
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT
DaveScot
In the same way that killing is a logical conclusion of a religious world view. I mean, if everyone has life everlasting and when the die they go to heaven where everything is all wonderful and beautiful forever, then logically you do someone a favor when you kill them as you’re delivering them to paradise.
That defeats your original argument that the people you kill have everlasting life, and thus you should kill them. If the people you kill have everlasting life then it cannot be possible to kill them in God's name. If you kill them in God's name then it's not going to grant you everlasting life, unless you're talking about Islam perhaps.WinglesS
April 24, 2008
April
04
Apr
24
24
2008
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply