Article image.
Posted on 06/21/2019 8:59:33 AM PDT by fishtank
Is Secular Science Re-Opening the Door to Eugenics? Further Opening the Door to Eugenics:
Justice Clarence Thomas’s Brief on Planned Parenthood, Eugenics, and Margaret Sanger
June 19, 2019 | Jerry Bergman
by Jerry Bergman, PhD
Introduction
On May 28, 2019, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a strong, well-documented opinion detailing how Darwinism logically influenced Planned Parenthood, eugenics, and Margaret Sanger.[1] The pro-abortion secular media aggressively attacked his historical analysis, claiming, among other things, that it was factually incorrect. The critics’ bias was obvious in their choice of words. They referred to human embryos as “cells” or “cellular globules,” “future humans,” and other terms that dehumanized the unborn. They condemned Thomas’s reference to an aborted fetus “as if it were a child.” We should never forget that leading up to the Holocaust, the Nazis dehumanized their victims, calling them “vermin,” “lives not worth living,” and “useless eaters.”
(Excerpt) Read more at crev.info ...
Article image.
They’ve always wanted to do Eugenics.
Only Judeo-Christian ethics have stood in their way.
They are well on their way to consigning that obstacle
to history’s trash bin.
Remember the Holocaust was born in the labs and studies at Cold Spring Harbor Lab on Long Island. A fact no one there ever mentions to the school groups visiting on class outings.
Eugenics door was never shut. But now at least those pesk Christmas school plays are gone too ;)
IVF and all of those nasty shades of Hitler and Mengele are and have been normalized.
All perfect children. A society that aborts down syndrome babies without many exceptions is destructing.
Planned Parenthood location selection is absolute proof of that fact.
As for obstacles, I'd say they've already consigned the obstacle of Christian ethics to the trash bin rather than being just well on their way to trashing it.
Look back over the past seventy years and make note of which groups provided the lawyers and money behind first legalizing then expanding abortion in the country as well as being behind the elimination of Christian symbols and values from any and all public functions to see what well funded groups have always been dedicated to eugenics.
There's some strange bedfellows in that mix but they all agree that only their own version of the "elect" deserve to exist and that all others should mostly be eliminated by any means necessary.
Eugenics was a wildly popular movement in this country at the turn of the 20th. Century. I can show you speeches and writings on the subject by Teddy Roosevelt, and if you did not know the author you would swear it was Hitler.
This is why it’s incumbent upon Christians (of the wishy washy variety, who are on the fence about Donald Trump) to WAKE UP. Judicially speaking, whoever is the next President will have the power to shift the Court(s) in ways that can impact our society for decades. It’s also important we have solid majorities in the Senate and House.
No there is something else going on here too.
In the past, it was rare for the severely mentally ill or mentally handicapped to reproduce. Not the case today, becasue of mandated supported services.
It was rare for the severely physically ill especially those with genetic illness to reproduce, now they do with mandated supported services.
Up until recently the care of these people was simple christian charity of housing, feeding and clothing them, now it is much more.
And it is getting to be too expesnsive for the results obtained, therefore the unthinkable will occur.
I don't know how far TR went in his embrace of Darwinism -- but it's no wonder that it was actually Democrat William Jennings Bryan holding the fort for Creationism during the Scopes-Monkey trial in TN. Makes one wonder what would have happened had he beat McKinley for the Presidency in the pivotal 1896 election.
Look at what a century plus of Darwinism in our curriculum has wrought on our society. (And world.) The Holocaust being the worst...but also Roe v. Wade, etc... :(
Don't blame Teddy. There was a scientific consensus. Formulating policy views because a bunch of scientists tell you what to do is not a new thing.
Text of the Closing Statement of William Jennings Bryan at the trial of John Scopes,
Dayton, Tennessee, 1925
(EXCERPT)
Our fifth indictment of the evolutionary hypothesis is that, if taken seriously and made the basis of a philosophy of life, it would eliminate love and carry man back to a struggle of tooth and claw. The Christians who have allowed themselves to be deceived into believing that evolution is a beneficient, or even a rational process have been associating with those who either do not understand its implications or dare not avow their knowledge of these implications. Let me give you some authority on this subject. I will begin with Darwin, the high priest of evolution, to whom all evolutionists bow.
On pages 149 and 150, in “The Descent of Man,” ‘ already referred to, he says:
“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick: we institute poor laws and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to smallpox. Thus the weak members of civilized society propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to thedegeneration of a domestic race; but, excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
“The aid which we felt impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. * * * We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak serving and propagating their kind.”
Darwin reveals the barbarous sentiment that runs through evolution and dwarfs the moral nature of those who become obsessed with it. Let us analyze the quotation just given. Darwin speaks with approval of the savage custom of eliminating the weak so that only the strong will survive, and complains that “we civilized men do our utmost to check the process of elimination.” How inhuman such a doctrine as this! He thinks it injurious to “build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick” or to care for the poor. Even the medical men come in for criticism because they “exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment.” And then note his hostility to vaccination because it has “preserved thousands who, from a weak constitution would, but for vaccination, have succumbed to smallpox!” All of the sympathetic activities of civilized society are condemned because they enable “the weak members to propagate their kind.” Then he drags mankind down to the level of the brute and compares the freedom given to man unfavorably with the restraint that we put on barnyard beasts.
The second paragraph of the above quotation shows that his kindly heart rebelled against the cruelty of his own doctrine. He says that we “feel impelled to give to the helpless,” although he traces it to a sympathy which he thinks is developed by evolution; he even admits that we could not check this sympathy “even at the urging of hard reason, withough deterioration of the noblest part of our nature.” “We must therefore bear” what he regards as “the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind.” Could any doctrine be more destructive of civilization? And what a commentary on evolution! He wants us to believe that evolution develops a human sympathy that finally becomes so tender that it repudiates the law that created it and thus invites a return to a level where the extinguishing of pity and sympathy will permit the brutal instincts to again do their progressive (?) work!
“Evolution is a Bloody Business”
Let no one think that this acceptance of barbarism as the basic principle of evolution died with Darwin. Within three years a book has appeared whose author is even more frankly brutal than Darwin. The book is entitled “The New Decalogue of Science” and has attracted wide attention. One of our most reputable magazines has recently printed an article by him defining the religion of a scientist. In his preface he acknowledges indebtedness to twenty-one prominent scientists and educators, neatly all of them “doctors” and “professors.” One of them, who has recently been elevated to the head of a great state university, read the manuscript over twice “and made many invaluable suggestions.” The author describes Nietzsche, who, according to Mr. Darrow, made a murderer out of Babe Leopold. as “the bravest soul since Jesus.” He admits that Nietzsche was “gloriously wrong,” not certainly, but “perhaps,” “in many details of technical knowledge,” but he affirms that “Nietzsche was gloriously right in his fearless questioning of the universe and of his own soul.”
(Excerpt)
Read the rest here:
http://www5.csudh.edu/oliver/smt310-handouts/wjb-last/wjb-last.htm
Prophetic if you ask me.
Seems to me that Stalin murdering about sixty million mostly Christian Orthodox Russians, Mao killing a hundred million Chinese deliberately and about that many more through his industrialization plans causing starvation, in the competition for what qualifies as the worst example the Holocaust doesn't win hands down just because the others are generally ignored.
WJ Bryan should remind us that the whole Progressive Agenda was launched by radical neo-Christians who believed they could ‘correct’ or ‘improve’ on traditional Christianity.
Let us, then, hear the conclusion of the whole matter. Science is a magnificent material force, but it is not a teacher of morals. It can perfect machinery, but it adds no moral restraints to protect society from the misuse of the machine. It can also build gigantic intellectual ships, but it constructs no moral rudders or the control of storm-tossed human vessels. It not only fails to supply the spiritual element needed, but some of its unproven hypotheses rob the slip of its compass and thus endanger its cargo.
In war, science has proven itself an evil genius; it has made war more terrible than it ever was before. Man used to be content to slaughter his fellowmen on a single plain - the earth's surface. Science has taught him to go down into the water and shoot up from below and to go up into the clouds and shoot down from above, thus making the battlefield three times as bloody as it was before. But science does not teach brotherly love. Science has made war so hellish that civilization was about to commit suicide; and now we are told that newly discovered instruments of destruction will make the cruelty of the late war seem trivial in comparison with the cruelties of wars that may come in the future. If civilization is to be saved from the wreckage threatened by intelligence not consecrated by love, it must be saved by the moral code of the meek and lowly Nazarene. His teachings, and His teachings alone, can solve the problems that vex the heart and perplex the world.
The world needs a savior more than it ever did before and there is only one "Name under Heaven given among men whereby we must be saved." It is this Name that evolution degrades, for, carried to its logical conclusion, it robs Christ of the glory of a virgin birth, of the majesty of His deity and mission, and of the triumph of His resurrection. It also disputes the doctrine of the atonement.
It is for the jury to determine whether this attack upon the Christian religion shall be permitted in the public schools of Tennessee by teachers employed by the State and paid out of the public treasury. This case is no longer local: the defendant ceases to play an important part. The case has assumed the proportions of a battle royal between unbelief that attempts to speak through so-called science and the defenders of the Christian faith. speaking through the legislators of Tennessee. It is again a choice between God and Baal; it is also a renewal of the issue in Pilate's court. In that historic trial - the greatest in history - force, impersonated by Pilate, occupied the throne. Behind it was the Roman Government, mistress of the world, and behind the Roman Government were the legions of Rome. Before Pilate stood Christ, the apostle of love. Force triumphed; they nailed Him to the tree and those who stood around mocked and jeered and said "He is dead." But from that day the power of Caesar waned and the power of Christ increased. In a few centuries the Roman Government was gone and its legions forgotten; while the crucified and risen Lord has become the greatest fact in history and the growing Figure of all time.
~ William Jennings Bryan
Trial of John Scopes 1925 Dayton, Tennessee
You left out the Ukrainian Holocaust.
Don’t deliberately so they won’t get any uppity independence ideas
I did not know this
What or How did this American lab aid the Holocaust?
hmm...I see the traces of Trumpian populism in Bryan moreso than the progressivism of the Eugene Debs/Bernie Sanders sort. I also place the social justice bent of the Reverend Martin Luther King in a different category as I don’t think it’s fair to lump MLK under ‘progressive.’ More complex than that.
WJ Bryan’s economic and political views may have been a bit off, but he was no radical neo-Christian. He was a traditional Presbyterian...how Calvinist he was, I’m not sure.
If you need proof, look no further than his final statement at the Scopes-Monkey (Creationism vs. Evolution) trial in 1925, from which I’ve posted a few excerpts earlier on this thread.
QUOTE:
Again force and love meet face to face, and the question, “What shall I do with Jesus.” must be answered. A bloody, brutal doctrine - evolution - demands, as the rabble did 1,900 years ago, that He be crucified. That cannot be the answer of this jury, representing a Christian state and sworn to uphold the laws of Tennessee. Your answer will be heard throughout the world; it is eagerly awaited by a praying multitude. If the law is nullified, there will be rejoicing wherever God is repudiated, the Saviour scoffed at and the Bible ridiculed. Every unbeliever of every kind and degree will be happy. If, on the other hand, the law is upheld and the religion of the school children protected, millions of Christians will call you blessed and, with hearts full of gratitude to God, will sing again that grand old song of triumph:
Faith of our fathers. living still,
In spite of dungeon, fire and sword;
O, how our hearts beat high with joy,
Whene’er we hear that glorious word;
Faith of our fathers - holy faith -
We will be true to thee till death!
http://www5.csudh.edu/oliver/smt310-handouts/wjb-last/wjb-last.htm
And the Turks killing a few million Christians, mostly Armenians but quite a few Greeks and others as well.
I don't understand the, "Don't deliberately . . ."
The reason I didn't include them is that neither the Ukraine or Turkey are generally accepted as having murdered six million or more. To get to that number in either case you have to add in the birth deficit which isn't included in the others so neither fits nor do several occasions in Africa when a million or more were murdered.
That's the comparison that was being made, mass murders that murdered six million.
Sorry!
Pecking an answer out and working at the same time sometimes yields incoherence! Somehow the word Stalin got left out!
It was supposed to be “Don’t leave out the Ukrainians,.. Stalin deliberately etc.”
I apologize if I offended! It wasn’t intentional.
Read The War on the Weak. This lab was the focal point of the movement to improve humanity through selective breeding, forced sterilization, aborting fetuses with problematic parental mental or physical disabilities. They never used the term Master Race but they meant it. They were a scientific reaction to the fear that Southern and Eastern Eutopean immigration and the potential for black white miscegenation would spoil the American Race. They conducted studies, clinical experiments. It is alleged but I do not know if it has been proven that the scientific and quasi scientific architects ofNazi population policies had closely studied the work done at Cold Spring Harbor.
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.