Posted on 10/26/2009 8:21:51 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Many people have said or thought this since Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, invented the term ‘eugenics’ in 1883.[1] Since then, the cheerleaders for this offspring of evolution have included racists of many different nationalities, such as Hitler’s Nazis, as well as enthusiasts for the ‘right’ to abortion, euthanasia, and now in the 21st century, human destruction for embryonic stem-cell research. This is of course consistent with the belief they all share, namely that people are all just evolved animals.
The many violations of human rights, and the killings and genocides which are the result of eugenicist beliefs are well documented and so are well known.[2] What is not so well known is that, in the early 20th century, eugenics was promoted with almost evangelistic fervour in American élite circles, leading to the forced sterilization of over 60,000 US citizens[3] and even euthanasia.[4,5] Even worse, it was ardently promoted by many of the liberal ‘mainline’ churches in America.[6,7]...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Ping!
Well it’s a good thing that the left aborts their own children. But soon they will force others to follow suit. Except of course Muslims becasue they will kill the left if they tried, conservatives however are a different story, we will obey the laws and get our forced abortions. end scarasm.
We’ll see. Margaret Sanger was very much into this, and the left don’t seem to be bothered at all.
‘[L]iberal religious leaders allowed their worldviews to be molded by the promise of the new science of eugenics’23, i.e. by the latest science of their day.
Today many Christian leaders have adopted the worldview that says scientists, not the Bible, are the authority for how the universe, Earth and life began. Thus, Eden has become a myth, and the account of Creation in six days by God is, in many churches, subject to a new eisegesis24 based on the beliefs of atheist scientists.
_______
Are there any specific examples of Christian leaders who have had their worldview shaped by eugenics?
The first and second paragraphs are two completely independent thoughts, not appearing to be dependent one on the othe, at all. It is one thing to suggest that some Christian leaders allegorize Genesis, quite another to suggest that they have embraced eugenics.
yup...this is what happens when liberals reject the Bible or refer to reading the Bible as idolatry (of all things).
You could start by reading the following:
The church preaches eugenics: a history of church support for Darwinism and eugenics
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_3/j20_3_54-60.pdf
You can also find a book length treatment of the subject, here:
http://www.amazon.com/Preaching-Eugenics-Religious-American-Movement/dp/019515679X
Tell me, what exactly is a Bible-rejecting church?
I will try to give it a closer reading as time allows, but in skimming the pdf at the first link, the attempt appears to be made to suggest that Darwinism and eugenics are pretty much the same thing, that support for the notion of heredity means support for eugenics.
I don’t particularly buy that attempt.
I don't like the last two sentences of his conclusion. I fail at following the "Blueprint" every day because I am sinful! It is God's plan of salvation, not a self help book. All scripture points to Christ and his atoning work. If you look at scripture as a book on how to be a better person, then I guess being a better person is your goal, will bring you happiness, and eugenics would fit into your plan. But if you look at the Bible as God's plan of salvation for YOU through Christ's life, death, and resurrection, than that is your peace that passes all understanding, whether you are "happy" or not.
The Bible is both.
...any church that does not have the belief that Man walked the Earth with 100+ species of large meat eating dinosaurs within the past 4,400 years?
“A most important obstacle in civilised countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class has been strongly urged by MR. GREG* and Mr. Galton, namely, the fact that the very poor and reckless, who are often degraded by vice, almost invariably marry early, whilst the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise virtuous, marry late in life, so that they may be able to support themselves and their children in comfort. Those who marry early produce within a given period not only a greater number of generations, but, as shewn by Dr. Duncan,19 they produce many more children. The children, moreover, that are born by mothers during the prime of life are heavier and larger, and therefore probably more vigorous, than those born at other periods. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: “The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him. Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts—and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sixth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal ‘struggle for existence,’ it would be the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed—and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults.”
*(I highlighted Mr. Greg with caps)
William Greg wrote an essay entitled, “On the failure of ‘Natural Selection’ in the case of Man”, in which he argues basically that man's preservation of the unfit has frustrated natural selection and degrades the races.
If you would like the full essay, I believe I have it.
But the “social gospel” became a mixture of misapplied Christian charity and half baked eugenics which today has morphed into welfare social planning and abortion on demand.
Under the “social gospel” God's Kingdom could, with enough clout and effort be established on earth. Poverty done away with, population (especially of the poor, lower classes) controlled.
And political and religious goals could merge just as the Federal Council of Churches termed the old League of Nations “the political expression of the kingdom of God on earth”.
Both the League and the Council are gone and we still don't have God's Kingdom on earth but the social gospel and eugenics remain with us in full bloom.
“If you would like the full essay, I believe I have it.”
Yes, please!
Please do! Thanks—GGG
Will do.
Thanks for the ping!
“The Smartest Women In The World” eats this...stuff up.
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.