Posted on 08/22/2006 2:04:20 PM PDT by js1138
It is kind of sad when so-called conservatives parade naked in public and display their shortcomings.
The term "races" in Darwin's title refers to varieties -- a generic term applicable to all living things.
Natural selection is Darwin's discovery. Selective breeding was discovered thousands of years ago. Genocide is at least as old as Joshua.
My point is that if science was the motivation behind Hitler's genocide, he would have preserved and protected the best and brightest of German citizens rather than killing them.
This is NOT a 'evangelical nutcase' idea. Darwin's ideas are responsible for Hitler is philosophically and historically consistent.
Darwin's own book title shows that without Darwin there would have never been a Hitler.
The full title to Darwin's book was:
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Species
Without the philisophical ideas that man is nothing more than an intellectual animal, he is not distinst from animals in any way, AND man is so intelligent and evolved so that he should direct his future evolution Hitler would have never happened in history as we know it.
These ideas stand in antithesis to the philisophical ideas that man is created, man is created special, unique from animals, in the image of God, and the purpose in life is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.
Dogs, horses, etc have been bred for eons. I don't claim to be a specialist on the subject. But it is my impression that the paradigm within which breeding is discussed has changed since Darwin. I can't say how much is due to Darwin since it's just an impression.
For example, there is a phrase "He's well bred" that refers to both animals and humans. It is my impression that the way such a phrase was used in early literature is different than the way it is used in more recent literature.
The current tinkering with DNA seems to be cross species. It's paradigm is not limited by the old concept that no matter how much you breed a dog, it is still a dog. The new paradigm apparently is to take certain DNA strings from a dog and a pig and put them in a third animal.
A dis-connect exists in the current stem cell debate because most people on each side of the debate are in different paradigms. One paradigm says "its human life". The other paradigm says "its just a DNA string".
In the 1892 SCOTUS case, Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, Justice Brewer stated in an opinion that this was a Christian Nation. He did not imply our nation is a "theocracy", nor has Kennedy.
>>>To the contrary, as Benjamin Franklin himself duly noted, "The convention, except three or four persons, thought prayer unnecessary."<<<
It is true that Franklin requested prayer on June 28, 1787, as follows:
From: The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 1] YATES Thursday, June 28th, 1787.
Governor Franklin read some remarks, acknowledging the difficulties of the present subject. Neither ancient or modern history, (said Gov. Franklin,) can give us light. As a sparrow does not fall without Divine permission, can we suppose that governments can be erected without his will? We shall, I am afraid, be disgraced through little party views. I move that we have prayers every morning.
From: The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 1] Thursday, June 28, 1787.
Gov. FRANKLIN read some remarks acknowledging the difficulties of the present subject. Neither ancient nor modern history (said Gov. Franklin) can give us light. As a sparrow does not fall without divine permission, can we suppose that governments can be erected without his will? We shall, I am afraid, be disgraced, through little party views. I move that we have prayers every morning.
I searched for the phrases "thought prayer unnecessary", "except three or four persons", and even the words "Franklin prayer" in an attempt to find a match on your quote, to no avail. Can you provide a suitable reference?
It is kind of sad when so-called conservatives parade naked in public and display their shortcomings.
The term "races" in Darwin's title refers to varieties -- a generic term applicable to all living things.
Natural selection is Darwin's discovery. Selective breeding was discovered thousands of years ago. Genocide is at least as old as Joshua.
My point is that if science was the motivation behind Hitler's genocide, he would have preserved and protected the best and brightest of German citizens rather than killing them.
It was also founded as a white nation. Religious bigotry is no prettier than racial bigoty.
Thanks for explicating this. It's been niggling at the back of my mind and wouldn't come forward.
Whatever.
>>>It was also founded as a white nation. Religious bigotry is no prettier than racial bigoty.<<<
Anti-Christian bigotry is certainly no prettier.
Rejection of theocracy is not bigotry, any more than rejection of slavery is anti-white bigotry.
>>>Rejection of theocracy is not bigotry<<<
You are confusing "rejection of theocracy" with the ACLU's war against anything Christian. When George Washington gave his Thanksgiving Day Proclamation; when children were taught the Bible in earlier (pre-ACLU) public schools; and when Franklin D. Roosevelt led the nation in prayer during WWII, no one confused those actions with those of a theocracy. You have bought into the lies of the ACLU and their fellow Christian-haters.
For the record, what is wrong with teaching children not to kill, not to steal, to honor their parents, and to love their neighbors as themselves? Just curious.
Max Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention, Volume 1, p. 452, fn. 15, noting that the statement is found in the Franklin manuscript of the "prayer speech."
See: http://rs6.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwfr.html
As for Justice Brewer's dicta in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, the statement (as is the nature of dicta) had nothing to do with the decision in the case, and has itself been deployed by Dr. Kennedy in a, well, less than forthright manner (including a rather bizzare assertion that the Supreme Court spent ten years researching the Holy Trinity decision to come to the conclusion that "America is a Christian Nation.")
I have never noticed any correlation between profession of faith and good behavior. In fact, on these threads it appears to be an inverse correlation.
It is difficult to see how people committed to telling the truth could be Holocaust deniers or deniers of the centuries of German antisemitism leading up to it, but here it is, for everyone to see.
I know you don't like his conclusion. The problem is, his facts are correct. I can scan in and post the German text from both sources, if you like, and you can compare it with what Carrier says and the English text.
I would not go so far as Carrier. I would say that Hitler was raised Catholic, and much of his thought reflected his early upbringing. He clearly thought he could remake Christianity in his own image - the man was a megalomaniac, after all - but he was constantly thinking about, and through the perspective of, Christianity. The more complete of the two German versions of the Führermonologe has 5 index entries for 'Darwinismus', and the references are so indirect I hardly recognize them. The name Darwin does not appear in the name index; nor does Haeckel or any other Darwinian I recognize. On the other hand, there are at least 30 references to Christianity, including discussions that span several pages. And some of the references are quite favorable. He discussed a personal God with every indication he believed God to be a real entity. This is my direct translation of a passage from the monologue of 27 February 1942.
Creation, or Providence, is surely eternal. Man's concept of it is thus very shaky. Why did God not give mankind the possibility of coming to a better picture of it? Looked at horizontally, educated people know today that Catholicism has no more than 10% of humanity behind it. Simultaneously, created men have thousands of various beliefs about the same Providence. However, we see the matter also vertically; we know that Christianity occupies only a short epoch of humanity.That's deviant, heretical Christianity, but Christianity it is, for sure!
God creates men. We became men because of mortal sin. God gave that to man as a precondition. He watched for 500,000 years while they bred pure. Then it occurred to him, to send his only begotten son. A terrible roundabout way, the whole enterprise colossally arduous!
So is it conceivable that a man who was allegedly inspired by Darwin never, in four years of rambling monologues, uttered Darwin's name once, even while he rambled endlessly about his peculiar ideas of God?
The author seems to see no distinction between groups that advocate a point of view using persuasion, and those that use bombs. Seems like the ADL message, boiled down is SHUT UP!! JUST SHUT YOUR UGLY FACE!!!
Boiled down even more, it says, stop lying.
The Alleged anti-Christian statements by Hitler are as fraudulent as the pictures recently published by Reuters.
Nothing. The problem is that the Christian Bible says more than that. If you look closely, you'll notice that it also has a small section claiming that Jesus is the Messiah, something Jews and other non-Christians are oddly unwilling to have taught to their kids in public school. Don't play around with strawmen. Are Jews asking that Christian kids be forced to read the Talmud in elementary school? No? Then afford us a similar courtesy.
So, if Darwin isn't to blame for Hitler, does this mean that every social conservative in the United States is no longer going to be considered a Nazi in the making? Didn't think so.
Apparently Darwin did hold that eventually whites would wipe out the "inferior races" and then the great apes. He didn't advocate it, he simply said it would happen because that's the way he saw the world working. Of course, that was before Marx thought he saw a justification for "compassion" and "social justice" in utter meaninglessness.
D. James Kennedy, however, is not a Zionist Fundamentalist, though he currently supports Israel for "civilizational" reasons. He is very much a classical Reformation Protestant and some of his messages that I've heard seem to imply that America is simply supposed to be a chr*stian (ie, Presbyterian nation), which implies that there's a different true religion for every country, people, and culture on earth. Give me the good old universalist "follow me or die!" alternative every time!
Christians for giving
Hitler the whole idea
of a perfect realm?
Sorry, that's not a chr*stian idea at all (in fact, in classical chr*stianity the "millenial reign" merely means history after the establishment of the church). I'm afraid that a perfect society is actually the Jewish messianic idea, though you anti-religious types never seem to get that. As a matter of fact, Genesis is a Jewish book not a chr*stian one. And it wasn't chr*stians who were ordered to exterminate the seven nations of Canaan and `Amaleq (men, women, and children) either. But of course anti-religious types like to pose as "lovers of the Jews" so they turn the entire Bible into a chr*stian document, which it isn't.
I don't recall Moses, Joshua, or David HaMelekh ever knocking on anyone's door to ask "are you saved?" But somehow everyone seems to think they were ancient Southern Baptists.
Only people who believe every single human being is the descendant of an original human couple can be a racist. Everyone knows that! Evolution rightly interpreted actually supports Randianism . . . no, wait, it supports Marxism . . . no, wait, capitalism . . . no, wait, Communism . . .
So what objective moral standard does it teach again?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.