Posted on 08/22/2006 2:04:20 PM PDT by js1138
ADL Blasts Christian Supremacist TV Special & Book Blaming Darwin For Hitler
New York, NY, August 22, 2006 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today blasted a television documentary produced by Christian broadcaster Dr. D. James Kennedy's Coral Ridge Ministries that attempts to link Charles Darwin's theory of evolution to Adolf Hitler and the atrocities of the Holocaust. ADL also denounced Coral Ridge Ministries for misleading Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute for the NIH, and wrongfully using him as part of its twisted documentary, "Darwin's Deadly Legacy."
After being contacted by the ADL about his name being used to promote Kennedy's project, Dr. Collins said he is "absolutely appalled by what Coral Ridge Ministries is doing. I had NO knowledge that Coral Ridge Ministries was planning a TV special on Darwin and Hitler, and I find the thesis of Dr. Kennedy's program utterly misguided and inflammatory," he told ADL.
ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman said in a statement:"This is an outrageous and shoddy attempt by D. James Kennedy to trivialize the horrors of the Holocaust. Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people. Trivializing the Holocaust comes from either ignorance at best or, at worst, a mendacious attempt to score political points in the culture war on the backs of six million Jewish victims and others who died at the hands of the Nazis.
"It must be remembered that D. James Kennedy is a leader among the distinct group of 'Christian Supremacists' who seek to "reclaim America for Christ" and turn the U.S. into a Christian nation guided by their strange notions of biblical law."
The documentary is scheduled to air this weekend along with the publication of an accompanying book "Evolution's Fatal Fruit: How Darwin's Tree of Life Brought Death to Millions."
A Coral Ridge Ministries press release promoting the documentary says the program "features 14 scholars, scientists, and authors who outline the grim consequences of Darwin's theory of evolution and show how his theory fueled Hitler's ovens."
If you really, really, dislike the SToE then I suggest you develop a new theory and show, without distorting any laws of physics, that your theory explains the observed evidence better than the StoE. Then you can show how it explains observations the SToE cannot.
Until you do that you are just blowing so much smoke.
>>>Didn't bother reading the footnote, I see.<<<
Of course I read the footnote. But that does not prove Kennedy lied. Rather it proves that you are quick to grasp at anything to support your belief. Where is your proof that Franklin's proposal was denied?
One of the first things the first House did was to establish the office of Chaplain. And what was the duty of the Chaplain? To lead the House in prayer.
My question is, where did the 1st Congress get the notion that a Chaplain was needed, if not from the precedence set in the Continental Congress?
The non-existence thereof does indicate that Naziism is unsound. (ii! hah! not even a Latin plural!)
True enough. However, how do the teachings of Kennedy differ from those of his own Calvinist branch of evangelical Christianity? If Kennedy said that Hitler's massacres of Jews were the logical consequence of the theory of evolution, he would be in error. However, if he claimed some of the offshoots of Darwinism, such as the concept of survival of the fittest and eugenics, had a major influence on National Socialism, he would be correct. However, I do not see how holding either position would be immoral and anti-Christian.
Correct. I am not comfortable when any area of society is politicized. The state should be entirely neutral on such matters as science or religion, serving only to protect the respective practicioners and believers.
[PhilipFrenau] I see. You are a Moral Relativist.
LOL.
You are joking, yes? Or did you genuinely miss the extremely simple point? The moral values (which you specifed in your previous post) are absolute, and also common to most folks, as I indicated.
We may not all agree on the foundation for those morals, that is a different issue.
And it is also a secondary issue. I happen to believe that Matthew 19:19 is pretty absolute; you are the one who would appear to be 'relativistic' about it.
Which is a matter of no consequence.
The Lord does not need your assistance in determining who walks with Him.
bump
Wow! Just looked at some of your posts from other threads and for someone who claims to be vehemently against religious fundamentalism ("no American Taliban") you sure come across as a fundamentalist in your overriding disdain of religion. You know like those libs that just hate people that don't agree with them about the definition of hate. To hate hate - liberalism at it's most hypocritical.
As a Catholic that makes him a heretic, but it's not an unusual position among Protestants. As for Christianity being responsible for the fall of Rome, that would simply be a hyperbolic reading of Gibbon.
Very good. We now have a concession that he wasn't a Catholic. That's actually progress with some of you.
Now, the part about Jesus being an "Aryan" -- what particular branch of Christianity to which you would say that belongs? What part of the Bible would that come from?
Hitler was not a Christian. He hated Christianity. He did not want it taught in schools. He wanted to replace Christian holidays with pagan ones. He could have been a member of the NEA.
Here's some more intimate statements from der Fuhrer about Christianity:
And I suspect they are giving Richard Carrier fits.
The puzzling thing is why do so many people on this board want to believe that Hitler was some kind of Christian when it is indisputable that he was an anti-Christian?
Nice references you have for the quotation.
But if you have read what I have said on these threads you would know that I am uninterested in Hitler's sincerity. The German people reacted to his public writings and statements, not to unrecorded private musings.
What the people who elected him and followed him saw were the trappings of Christianity, the clerics that saluted him in public, the mottos, the crosses. Are you asserting the German people were secret Muslims and they all just went along with the gag?
By the way, are all people who make heretical comments in private conversations automatically not Catholics? Is there some kind of rule about automatic self excommunication?
His claims about the bogus quotes have survived peer review. I have also checked them. That was what we were discussing, not Carrier's atheism. Deal with it. "Christianity teaches 'transubstantiation,' which is the maddest thing ever concocted by a human mind in its delusions, a mockery of all that is godly."
Transubstantiation is not accepted by most Christians. Surely you know that.
It seems to me you are pretty much splitting hairs. Hitler was not a Christian and hated Christianity.
Hitler was critical of Christianity in some passages, and accepting of much of its doctrine in others. He was of course a monster, and much of his language is immoderate.
I guess Hitler was a Darwinist, after all.
That was Spencer's phrase, not Darwin's.
At the time, Disciples of Christ claimed one and a half million members. Hardly a "fringe".
I wasn't claiming that DoC was a fringe, but that Jones and his congregation were a fringe group.
It pointed out the inconsistencies, errors, indecencies in the Bible, particularly the KJV.
The Bible doesn't contain any errors, inconsistencies or indecencies. I rather like the KJV translation but it has its flaws.
All well known and acknowledged by Christians today, except for literal fundamatists.
While the claims of Biblical error, inconsistency and indecency are well-known to me, I don't acknowledge such claims as being particularly well-founded. And I am not a fundamentalist.
the word 'myth' (your quote) is not found
Correct. he does not use the word "myth."
He uses other degrading epithets to claim that the Bible is false, but he does not specifically include the word "myth" among those epithets.
Nope.
Again, you are technically correct that he did not explicitly say that Jesus was not God and that he was not the Messiah. What he did instead was to claim to be a prophet himself and arrogate to himself the authority to stand in judgment over Scripture (an authority Jesus never claimed). What he did instead was to describe Jesus as a "savior-teacher" and carefully avoid referring to him as God incarnate, to refer to Jesus as "reincarnatable as a child's smile" and said that Jesus "left the body in the Sonship degree" - which is an Arian, not a Christian notion.
There's no central authority to 'dis-fellowship' a member church.
At the general Assemblies, the congregations of the DoC at that time decided whether or not they would remain in fellowship with other congregations. It was a foregone conclusion that the Peoples Temple would be officially disfellowshipped, as the other congregations of the DoC had already made crystal clear that they did not consider the Peoples Temple to be a legitimate congregation, but a cult.
When all the other congregations of a denomination want nothing to do with you, you are disfellowshipped.
Privately, Hitler was close to Rosenberg's views, but in public, he had to distance himself
He was cagey, but he did not hesitate to promote Rosenberg's writings.
That was neo-pagan Himmler.
I sincerely doubt Himmler could have done anything without the leader's blessing.
Nope. Ludwig Müller was little known Lutheran minister
I was unclear. I consider Mueller (a Marcionist, not a neo-pagan) to have been just a puppet installed by Rosenberg, whom I consider to be the chief architect and leader (head minister in a political sense, not head bishop in an ecclesiastical sense) of state-controlled religious institutions in the Reich.
Nope. That was Rosenberg and atheist Martin Bormann.
Again, I consider Rosenberg to have been head minister of religion in the Reich, and those proposals come from his 30 point plan that he used to design the National Church.
Sort of like the break-away Episcopalians.
Those who want to destroy the Catholic church and thing Jesus was an Aryan and don't believe in transubstantiation are not Catholics.
Sounds about right, except that the episcopal structure makes it that much tougher to extricate them.
Is that official, though. Are you authorized to say that any Catholic who utters intemperate thoughts or doubts in private is automatically excommunicated?
Bearing in mind that the source for these quotes is someone who is on record as being anti-Christian, are you qualified to judge another person's soul based on the diary of Martin Bormann?
But you still haven't responded to my main point. Were the German people in on the gag? When Hitler said Christianity, did they wink and smile to each other, knowing that they were all secretly pagans?
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.