[ChessExpert]

I give some weight to slippery slope arguments, but they have their limit. Yes, once one starts down a slippery slope (Darwin), one might go too far (Hitler). But it may also be possible to stop one’s slide short. We have done that in the United States.

Our secular, school-taught dogma are to “believe in evolution” and to reject racism. Racism was once considered a natural extension of evolution. But that thinking has fallen from grace - don’t go there - don’t think. To further reject racism, students must now believe in multiculturalism, often understood as the equality of races and cultures.

For myself, I have my doubts about the scientific merits of biological evolution. That puts into doubt a significant underpinning of scientific racism. I accept the Christian perspective that we are all God’s children and should be valued highly. But I see no reason to accept the claim that all cultures have equal merit. Muslims greatly outnumber Jews in the world, but their positive contributions are far less. By itself, this would seem to deny the equality of cultures.

[DanDenDar]

Our secular, school-taught dogma are to “believe in evolution” and to reject racism. Racism was once considered a natural extension of evolution.

This makes no sense. In the United States, the region which put up the most resistance to the teaching of evolution - the South - was also the most racist. The dominant church there among whites, the Southern Baptist Converntion, was born of racism, and was and continues to be anti-evolution. American racists sometimes used evolution as a rationalisation for their racism, true, but before evolution was formulated, they used Christianity. This indicates there was no real foundation for racism in either evolution or Christianity, but both can be butchered to justify racism.