Christian Nazis?

Well clearly they were not "true christians". Only those who agree with my personal belief can be called true and I am beginning to worry about the man in the mirror because he doesn't look like my pictures.

The churches sold out to the Nazis as soon as he seemed like a winner. Where is that absolute morality we always hear about?

tsig, you forgot to emphasize the True Christian(tm). :p

I would recommend anyone who are interested in the subject to read "The Holy Reich"
http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Reich-Conceptions-Christianity-1919-1945/dp/0521603528/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214174495&sr=8-1

The book is very informative and describe the religious beliefs among top Nazis in great details. I think it's partly the media's fault that today we perceive the Nazis as a gang of crazy occultists when in fact the dominating faction in the party identify themselves as Christians of one stripe or another.

But heh, Nazis as occultists fit perfectly in movies and video games(Hellboy, Wolf 3D) so I don't think anyone will care anyway.

From Pope Pius XII on down, many if not most Christians in Europe had no problem with the "profound evil" of Hitler, who was after all doing no more to the Jews than Martin Luther had proposed centuries earlier. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies )

Today's supporters of "Christian Reconstructionism" and "Dominionism" in America are proposing Final Solutions not much less drastic than Hitler's. Rousas John Rushdoony's Chalcedon Foundation, or Dennis James Kennedy's Coral Ridge Ministries, or the many right wing whacko congregations who oppose all of evolution and biology and science - or the Dishonesty Institute and their fellow travelers who Lie For Jesus - morally stand right there with Reverend Martin's “Theologians Under Hitler.”

Yes, it could happen again, and it could happen in America.

"The German Evangelical Church seemed to the Nazis to offer an almost ideal vehicle for the religious unification of the German people."

- The Third Reich In Power (p220) by Richard J. Evans, from the chapters "Converting the Soul" covering the Nazi's use and abuse of religious and scientific organisations to their own ends.

Matt - interesting info. Thanks for posting.

Today’s supporters of “Christian Reconstructionism” and “Dominionism” in America are proposing Final Solutions not much less drastic than Hitler’s. Rousas John Rushdoony’s Chalcedon Foundation, or Dennis James Kennedy’s Coral Ridge Ministries, or the many right wing whacko congregations who oppose all of evolution and biology and science - or the Dishonesty Institute and their fellow travelers..

bcseweb.org Rushdooney: Our list may not be perfect but it seems to cover those “crimes” against the family that are inferred by Rushdoony’s statement to Moyers. The real frightening side of it is the interpretation of heresy, apostasy and idolatry. Rushdoony’s position seems to suggest that he would have anyone killed who disagreed with his religious opinions. That represents all but a tiny minority of people. Add to that death penalties for what is quite legal, blasphemy, not getting on with parents and working on a Sunday means that it the fantasy ideal world of Rushdoony and his pals, there will be an awful lot of mass murderers and amongst a tiny population. We have done figures for the UK which suggest that around 99% of the population would end up dead and the remainder would have each, on average, killed 500 fellow citizens. Chalcedon foundation bsceweb.org. Stoning disobedient children to death.Contempt for Parental Authority: Those who consider death as a horrible punishment here must realise that in such a case as ….cut for length Rev. William Einwechter, “Modern Issues in Biblical Perspective: Stoning Disobedient Children”, The Chalcedon Report, January 1999

Thanks for this posting. For years I have been quite concerned with the fact that we Christians seem to be more interested in arguing about God than we are following the rigorous ethical standards a belief in God might demand.

I have created these films as a way of getting inside that concern and giving folks a way to talk about it. Again, thanks for the posting.

I have to ask a question. I understand that this
"Theologians Under Hitler" film discusses three German theologians who supported Hitler and the Nazi's.

However, since this thread is specifically aimed at "people who think that “Darwinists” were responsible for the Holocaust",
does this particular film slso discuss the issue of whether Darwinism contributed in some way or ways to the Nazi Holocaust?

FL

FL said: I have to ask a question. I understand that this "Theologians Under Hitler" film discusses three German theologians who supported Hitler and the Nazi's. However, since this thread is specifically aimed at "people who think that “Darwinists” were responsible for the Holocaust", does this particular film slso discuss the issue of whether Darwinism contributed in some way or ways to the Nazi Holocaust? FL

FL said: ...discuss the issue of whether Darwinism contributed in some way or ways to the Nazi Holocaust?

Paul,

Good links to good documentation. Thank you.

FL . . .

Would you please tell us why the NAZIS had the inscription "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles?

Since you probably don't understand German, I'll translate: "God is with us." This is well documented. In fact, I have such a belt buckle from a Wehrmacht (German Army) uniform here in my study.

You don't seem capable of understanding that centuries of Christian anti-semitism led to the destruction of Jews in Europe under the Christian NAZIS.

Before you come in here and presume to lecture us, I suggest that you acquire a little European history. You know, stuff more than your ignorant pastor thumped into your head.

Not only has FL proven time and time again that s/he is not interested in learning anything, ever, s/he has also proven that s/he doesn't ever want anyone else to learn anything either. I call shenanigans and suggest immediate and automatic BW'ing. Thank you.

However, since this thread is specifically aimed at “people who think that “Darwinists” were responsible for the Holocaust”, does this particular film slso discuss the issue of whether Darwinism contributed in some way or ways to the Nazi Holocaust?

This provocative film asks: how could something like this happen in the heart of Christian Europe? Could it happen again? How does the scholarship of this period affect the church today? Does the church of today retain the ability to recognize profound evil?

To see just how bellicose, belligerent, and militaristic Hagee has come, just watch his speech at the AIPAC Washington conference. Behind his thundering prose and love for the Jewish people is a militaristic and even fanatical mindset that is hoping and praying for the world to fall apart. After all, Jesus can’t come back unless it does, but all is well since Christians before the "rapture" will escape the worst of it. Unfortunately for the Jewish people, they still await another massive holocaust, according to many dispensationalists. Anyone interested in this subject should read our own Gary North’s column, The Unannounced Reason Behind American Fundamentalism's Support for the State of Israel. An excerpt: Nothing can or will be done by Christians to save Israel’s Jews from this disaster, for all of the Christians will have been removed from this world three and a half years prior to the beginning of this 42-month period of tribulation. (The total period of seven years is interpreted as the fulfillment of the seventieth week of Daniel [Dan. 9:27].) In order for most of today’s Christians to escape physical death, two-thirds of the Jews in Israel must perish, soon. This is the grim prophetic trade-off that fundamentalists rarely discuss publicly, but which is the central motivation in the movement’s support for Israel. It should be clear why they believe that Israel must be defended at all costs by the West. If Israel were militarily removed from history prior to the Rapture, then the strongest case for Christians’ imminent escape from death would have to be abandoned. This would mean the indefinite delay of the Rapture. The fundamentalist movement thrives on the doctrine of the imminent Rapture, not the indefinitely postponed Rapture. Every time you hear the phrase, "Jesus is coming back soon," you should mentally add, "and two-thirds of the Jews of Israel will be dead in ‘soon plus 84 months.’" Fundamentalists really do believe that they probably will not die physically, but to secure this faith prophetically, they must defend the doctrine of an inevitable holocaust. This specific motivation for the support of Israel is never preached from any fundamentalist pulpit. The faithful hear sermons – many, many sermons – on the pretribulation Rapture. On other occasions, they hear sermons on the Great Tribulation. But they do not hear the two themes put together: "We can avoid death, but only because two-thirds of the Jews of Israel will inevitably die in a future holocaust. America must therefore support the nation of Israel in order to keep the Israelis alive until after the Rapture." Fundamentalist ministers expect their congregations to put two and two together on their own. It would be politically incorrect to add up these figures in public.

I don't know whether to be ashamed that both John Hagee and I are both the same species, or horrified to the point of nausea that a grown man could possibly think of such an odious parade of apocalyptic nonsense.

That Darwin was "theologically trained" looks like mere fact. After all, he had planned (or his family had planned for him) to settle down as a country parson. But in his young days, he was rather a tepid believer, if the biographies are to be believed. And in his old days, a closet atheist, who didn't like to discuss the matter because he preferred to remain a respectable gentleman and didn't want to upset his wife. Calling him religious seems a bit off. But there's surely something interesting to do about the evolution of his views on religion.

Christophe Thill said: That Darwin was "theologically trained" looks like mere fact.

There seems to have been more references to Pasteur and Koch than to Darwin. See some citations given by "Respectful Insolence" at Scienceblogs.com for March 29, 2008:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/03/a_question_for_ben_stein_why_are_you_sin.php

PvM said: The issue of this posting however is not so much to lay blame as to discuss the attempt of some to dismiss Christians who supported Nazism as somehow not 'real Christians'. Such an approach does a disservice to the lessons of history where Christians, quite willingly, collaborated with the Nazis.

Pope Pius the XII, who celebrated Hitler’s Birthday every year was not speaking to the atheist darwinists in his flock when he spoke of the “fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars” for Hitler’s success and well-being.

Even today we find politicians who view God as being on their side:

"“Only God, who appointed me, will remove me, not the M.D.C., not the British,” Mr. Mugabe declared in the city of Bulawayo on Friday. “Only God will remove me!”"

Clearly Mugabe embraces the motto "In God We Trust".

However, since this thread is specifically aimed at “people who think that “Darwinists” were responsible for the Holocaust”, does this particular film slso discuss the issue of whether Darwinism contributed in some way or ways to the Nazi Holocaust?

Torbjörn Larsson brought up the name of Gobineau as a precursor. I would like some help on his relationship with Darwin. I understand that Gobineau wrote his major work, "The Inequality of Human Races", before "On the Origin of Species" appeared. But I have gotten the impression that Gobineau was opposed to the idea of evolution. Anybody know?

Many notable scientist (Galton for instance) published scientific papers showing the empirical basis of racism and arguing for the practice of eugenics. Since scientists at the heart of the academic establishment argued for scientific racism, we are forced to evaluate the basis of their claims. There are only two fundamental ways to evaluate the data. We can either adopt a postmodernist approach and claim that scientific research only confirms the experimenter's biases. Thus we can argue that racist conclusions demonstrate the flaws of a scientific world view. Alternatively we can evaluate the empirical claims sincerely at the risk of being persuaded by them. If we find that the claims are correct, we must become racist ourselves, but if we find they are incorrect we will claim that those who advocate scientific racisms are not True Scientist(TM), meaning they fail to evaluate the data properly because of their biases. Observations about the popularity of scientific racism among scientists are non sequiters of no interest.

It seems only fair to allow the theologians a similarly logically consistent approach when assessing theological opinions. Neither scientist nor theologians should pretend that thoughtless and inconsistent practice of their respective intellectual disciplines can magically prevent moral atrocities, but I see no a priori fallacy in claiming that a book outlines an ethical system and that some action is inconsistent with this system. This is no different than saying that racisms is inconsistent with scientific evidence.

With this understanding, is it fair to claim that science or Christianity contributed to the holocaust? Since the ultimate causal origin of scientific racism is not nature herself, but rather human prejudices (unfortunate consequences of human evolution perhaps) claiming that scientific practice led to the holocaust is simply incorrect.

When making the claim that Christianity itself leads to the holocaust, you are making a claim about the central logic of Christian theology and must support your argument with references to this logic itself. Again in the same way as with scientific racism we can simply reject the validity of religion, or we can ask whether religion properly leads to the conclusions. Observations about the sociological climate of Europe, the inscription on Nazi belt buckles and Luther's writings are simply Non squiturs. Non sequiturs are incapable of lending any rational support to an argument despite their rhetorical efficacy.

Only because... oh, never mind. It's pointless.

TomS asked: ...I have gotten the impression that Gobineau was opposed to the idea of evolution. Anybody know?

Larry Boy said: When making the claim that Christianity itself leads to the holocaust, you are making a claim about the central logic of Christian theology and must support your argument with references to this logic itself.

Those who have mixed racism with science were doing so in defiance of the teachings of science." - http://schadey.blogspot.com/2008/04/evolution-myths-answered.html

Those who have mixed racism with Christianity were doing so in defiance of the teachings of Christ." - Larry Boy, P.T.

FL said: Okay, the answer from two posters seems to be "it's unlikely that this film does so." That's a reasonable answer, and I offer reasonable thanks to those two posters. However, it just seems kinda silly for one poster to advocate sending my question to the Bathroom Wall. FL

Paul Burnett said: I will make reference to the Crusades - essentially all of them - and note that they occurred prior to Darwin.

And sooner or later we will have to discuss the assorted Holocaust-like pogroms, wars of extermination, ethnic cleansing and other atrocities lovingly described in great detail in the (pre-Christian) Old Testament. Can you explain how Darwin affected these events?

Larry Boy said: I particularly like how this quote sounds so much like the No True Scotsman(TM) argument. I certainly don't disagree with the sentiment, but when answering such a myth I think it might have been appropriate to discuss WHY racist assertions disagree with reality, instead of dogmatically asserting that they do.

Biological science has shown definitively the biological differences between races are very minor. There is more genetic variation between members within a race than there are between two average members of different races.

Larry Boy said: Those who have mixed racism with Christianity were doing so in defiance of the teachings of Christ.” - Larry Boy, P.T.

Paul Burnett said: I will make reference to the Crusades - essentially all of them - and note that they occurred prior to Darwin.

It's silly of course, but anti-Darwinists try to blame the world's problems on them. And Pat Robertson blames any future trouble in Dover PA on them-thar libral types.

I am not an Historian, have only pieced together pieces of information, and would like other's input.

Post WWI Germany was a pretty uncomfortable place to be, with very expensive War reparations set at Versaille. Not that it is a reasonable excuse for future actions, but people there believed that Jews and Catholics somehow Sold The Country Out.
Nazi-ism didn't start out to be what it eventually became, not as much as Francisco Franco's regime was designed to be from the very start, and not as much as Philippe Petain's Vichy France was purposfully intended to be.

The common elements between these Bad things were their Demand for Traditional Values, their Authoritarian Behavior, and development of Fascist (little care for existing law) Governments.

The Christian element seemed to give emotional strength to the various Bad Authoritian regimes.

My father always used to say: People are People. Nobody says It Can't Happen Here.

the possibility is far greater that a vampire is more likely to go sunbathing with garlic butter than you are going to read a book your spiritual handlers did not give you expressed permission to read.

Björn said: If you did not miss these sentences, then please tell me why you think this does not answer "WHY racist assertions disagree with reality".

Larry Boy said: 1) what is a pogrom?

FL said: You mean books like "The Descent of Man" and "Mein Kampf", of which the latter clearly borrows from the Darwinism & Darwinian-Ethics of the former?

Larry Boy said: 1) what is a pogrom?

Stanton said:

Larry Boy said: 1) what is a pogrom?

A pogrom is mob violence or a riot that has been instigated by the gentry class against the local Jewish community in order to punish/persecute/instill the fear of God into them: used to happen all the time in Eastern Europe since the late Middle Ages. Czar Nicholas, who commissioned the forging of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was especially fond of pogroms. Do also note that this film is not about how Christianity caused the Holocaust, or even how Christians caused the Holocaust: the film is about how certain Christians (the ones featured in the film) used their power and influence to help facilitate the Holocaust, AND to pound yet another stake into the heart of the oft-revived lie that "Darwinism" was the root of the Holocaust.

Paul Burnett said:

Larry Boy said: 1) what is a pogrom?

Your ignorance speaks for itself. Thanks.

Whoops! I meant to edit out that insult. Well, my apologies.

FL said:

the possibility is far greater that a vampire is more likely to go sunbathing with garlic butter than you are going to read a book your spiritual handlers did not give you expressed permission to read.

You mean books like "The Descent of Man" and "Mein Kampf", of which the latter clearly borrows from the Darwinism & Darwinian-Ethics of the former? But that's another thread. I just wanted to ask about Rev. Martin's film, and that question has been answered. No need to quibble further. FL

Thanks, Paul, for the references. This confirms the impression that I had, but I'd like to get a reference directly to the writings of Gobineau or someone contemporaneous with him.

As far as I can tell, the programs of these various social/political movements of the early 20th century were quite distinct from evolutionary biology, if not outright contrary to it and more like - even - creationism and intelligent design.

1. The time when these movements flourished was known as the "eclipse of darwinism", because the concept of natural selection was not appreciated, and there was thought to be an opposition between "darwinism" and "mendelism". Also, there was a popularity for something like "lamarckianism" - think of Bergson's Élan vital.

2. Natural selection is, after all, natural, while eugenics is based on an idea that nature has to be helped along, by a purposeful, intelligent agency.

3. And recall that the creationists today often insist upon telling us that they accept evolution "within kinds", and only reject "macro"evolution. Clearly, those social/political movements had nothing at all to do with macro-evolution, and were only concerned with changes within "mankind".

We can see how little these ideologies thought of Darwin, as compared with Mendel, Koch, and Pasteur, as well as several non-biologists, from the relative dearth of favorable mention of Darwin in their writings. That's why I was interested in finding what Gobineau thought of "darwinism". For example, there is Houston Stewart Chamberlain who wrote of "A manifestly unsound system like that of Darwin" or "For this reason no tenable position can be derived even from the most consistent, and, therefore, most shallow Darwinism" or "Darwinian castles in the air".

FL said: You mean books like "The Descent of Man" and "Mein Kampf", of which the latter clearly borrows from the Darwinism & Darwinian-Ethics of the former? But that's another thread. I just wanted to ask about Rev. Martin's film, and that question has been answered. No need to quibble further. FL

First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, blaspheming of his son and of his Christians.... Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed... Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb... Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasures of silver and gold be taken from them for safekeeping... Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen. 3 [:19])

FL said:

the possibility is far greater that a vampire is more likely to go sunbathing with garlic butter than you are going to read a book your spiritual handlers did not give you expressed permission to read.

You mean books like "The Descent of Man" and "Mein Kampf", of which the latter clearly borrows from the Darwinism & Darwinian-Ethics of the former? But that's another thread. I just wanted to ask about Rev. Martin's film, and that question has been answered. No need to quibble further. FL

wikipedia: Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau (July 14, 1816 — October 13, 1882) was a French aristocrat, novelist and man of letters who became famous for developing the racialist theory of the Aryan master race in his book An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races (1853-1855). De Gobineau is credited as being the father of modern racial demography.

To Paul Burnett:

So do you disagree with anything that I have said? If so, what?

You seem to be under the impression that I think Darwin had some portion of blame for the holocaust. I do not.

Hitler was also very ignorant of Evolutionary theory.

Some gems

'From where do we get the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning what he is today.

A glance in Nature shows us , that changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals. But nowhere do we see inside a kind, a development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, if he supposedly has advanced from an ape-like condition to what he is' (now)

Hitler's Tabletalk entry for 27 February 1942

The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. xi

Yup, sounds Hitler sounds very Hovindian here.

Where in Mein Kampf is Darwin mentioned? Where did Hitler say his idea of racial/blood purity come from Darwin?

Larry Boy said: I am not arguing against that thesis of the film, but simply arguing that the use of Christian theology to support the Holocaust is not evidence that all Christianity theology must cause genocide. In other words it is not an argument in favor of atheism, and people who make claim that the Christians theologians who supported Hitler were not practicing the religion outlined in their holy book are not vapid apologist who ignore reason, because their arguments are fundamentally sound.

The contention that there were Christian Nazis----i.e. Nazis that were truly and honestly attempting to follow the teachings of love your neighbor Jesus, a Jew no less----is about as ridiculous and/or intellectually dishonest as the idea of Christian Darwinians---Darwinians who genuinely believe in Jesus and his authority, divinity, resurrection, etc. Sure, there may be bozos that argue such intellectual dichotomies and cognitive dissonances, but anyone with any sense immediately sees that it’s all nonsense.

The Nazis believed in racial purity, that their Aryan race was the superior, survival of the fittest race, that they were selected by NS to rule the world. They were quite obviously products of the social Darwinism of that time. The “Gott mit uns” on their buckles meant only that they invented an anti-Semitic, blond, blue-eyed Aryan god for their Aryan race; that god obviously had nothing remotely to do with the Jew Jesus or his teachings.

Regarding genocide, the bad news is that humans have been doing it for millennia, and continue to do it. Even chimps have been observed committing genocide of sorts. It’s in our nature. Blame evolution. The only way to avoid such atrocious human behavior is through religious/spiritual values that serve as a mitigating factor against the excesses of state power and human behavior.

Bah. Go away bigbang.

bigbang, if you are here just to repeat that lie over and over I recommend that you seek medical help. Your points have been refuted several times already.

Please be a good Christian for once and stop bearing false witness.

That is true. However, the excuse of “God told me/you so” (and its infinite permutations) has been extremely popular throughout the millenia, and very little has been done about combating this problem.

Please be a good Christian for once and stop bearing false witness.

Thanks for the link, Matt.

raven said: The "god told me to do it" excuse is a perennial favorite. Lately, with the various cults such as the FLDS and the ones in Texas and New Mexico, god has been telling creepy old men to have sex with numerous teen age girls. As has been noticed, what god tells people to do has a high correlation with what they want to do anyway. I'm sure it is just a coincidence.

The suspicion that everybody is talking about you is a sign of mental illness. A milder version of such delusions of reference is the tendency to believe that the some issue or idea you obsess about was also a preoccupation of other people at other times. The primal goofiness of the arguments about Darwin's supposed connection to Nazism goes beyond the pig ignorance of historical particulars demonstrated by its adherents. The more basic error is to assume that biological theories (of all things) were important one way or another in the rise of mass movements as if the priorities of Germans in the 1930s were similar to what Fundamentalists care about in 2008. Alas, those guys were riding different hobby horses.

bigbang said: Regarding genocide, the bad news is that humans have been doing it for millennia, and continue to do it. Even chimps have been observed committing genocide of sorts. It’s in our nature. Blame evolution. The only way to avoid such atrocious human behavior is through religious/spiritual values that serve as a mitigating factor against the excesses of state power and human behavior.

Raven says: “Someone did a word count of Mein Kampf. Christian is mentioned 32 times. Darwin is mentioned 0 (zero) times.”

.

Yeah, well, you see raven, Hitler’s book was something we call propaganda----the use of “Christian” doesn’t really mean a thing except that Hitler was making a half-ass attempt at reconciling Christianity with his survival of the fittest Aryan racial purity and superiority ideas using the social Darwinism of the day. Hitler was about as much a Christian as you are.

A quick read of, say, Hitler’s chapter on “Nation and Race” suggests that he was clearly taking his cues from Darwin and the social Darwinism of his day rather than anything Jesus ever taught. Here’s a quaint passage----“Thus men without exception wander about in the garden of Nature; they imagine that they know practically everything and yet with few exceptions pass blindly by one of the most patent principles of Nature's rule: the inner segregation of the species of all living beings on this earth.” And another: “No more than Nature desires the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, since, if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, night be ruined with one blow.”

See how nicely that fits in with Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”? You certainly don’t find stuff like that in Jesus’ teachings.

I particularly like how this quote sounds so much like the No True Scotsman™ argument. I certainly don’t disagree with the sentiment, but when answering such a myth I think it might have been appropriate to discuss WHY racist assertions disagree with reality, instead of dogmatically asserting that they do.

Mike said: “I hold myself forward as a VERY moral person.”

.

That’s nice. Most deluded people do have a VERY high opinion of themselves. Hitler saw himself as being VERY moral; and he also didn’t need the bible for guidance either.

Yeah, well, you see raven, Hitler’s book was something we call propaganda—-the use of “Christian” doesn’t really mean a thing except that Hitler was making a half-ass attempt at reconciling Christianity with his survival of the fittest Aryan racial purity and superiority ideas using the social Darwinism of the day. Hitler was about as much a Christian as you are.

bigbang said: Most deluded people do have a VERY high opinion of themselves.

bigbangbigot rants: “Thus men without exception wander about in the garden of Nature; they imagine that they know practically everything and yet with few exceptions pass blindly by one of the most patent principles of Nature's rule: the inner segregation of the species of all living beings on this earth.” And another: “No more than Nature desires the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, since, if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, night be ruined with one blow.” See how nicely that fits in with Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”? You certainly don’t find stuff like that in Jesus’ teachings.

Ezra 9:1 After these things had been done, the officials approached me and said, "The people of Israel, the priests, and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands with their abominations, from the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. Ezra 9:2 For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and for their sons. Thus the holy seed has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands, and in this faithlessness the officials and leaders have led the way."

John 8:44: You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

bigbang said: The contention that there were Christian Nazis----i.e. Nazis that were truly and honestly attempting to follow the teachings of love your neighbor Jesus, a Jew no less----is about as ridiculous and/or intellectually dishonest as the idea of Christian Darwinians---Darwinians who genuinely believe in Jesus and his authority, divinity, resurrection, etc. Sure, there may be bozos that argue such intellectual dichotomies and cognitive dissonances, but anyone with any sense immediately sees that it’s all nonsense. And yet, both exist. Christians like any others sometimes hold foolish beliefs, like anti-semitism or appreciate the facts of science, like Darwinians. Bigbang is still looking foolish in denying the obvious.

PvM said:

bigbang said: The contention that there were Christian Nazis----i.e. Nazis that were truly and honestly attempting to follow the teachings of love your neighbor Jesus, a Jew no less----is about as ridiculous and/or intellectually dishonest as the idea of Christian Darwinians---Darwinians who genuinely believe in Jesus and his authority, divinity, resurrection, etc. Sure, there may be bozos that argue such intellectual dichotomies and cognitive dissonances, but anyone with any sense immediately sees that it’s all nonsense.

And yet, both exist. Christians like any others sometimes hold foolish beliefs, like anti-semitism or appreciate the facts of science, like Darwinians. Bigbang is still looking foolish in denying the obvious.

Mike in Ontario NY said: Chimps committing genocide? Oh please! Where'd you pick up that garbage? Intra-species competition for resources isn't genocide.

bigbangbigot said: Most deluded people do have a VERY high opinion of themselves.

Nazi racial ideology was not Darwinist at all. Evolution states that random mutation (plus genetic drift, etc.) will produce variation and that natural selection will at some point select and that some of those variations will survive. Nazi ideology was based on opposition to this kind of variation; the insistence was on racial purity, as carried at the level of the blood, meaning in modern terms at the genetic or inheritable level. In Darwin's beliefs and in evolution generally, variation is good, necessary and inevitable while the Nazi racial beliefs were opposed to variation.

The only connection between Nazi beliefs and evolution is through a weird, even insane linking of the selection mechanism of natural selection and the Nazi's brutal selection through murder. Natural selection chooses what survives given a specific context, while the Nazis established a context of imagined racial purity and then enacted their own version of selection. The Nazis were attempting to prevent the mixing of races and the development of variety. They spoke specifically about this, referring often to Jews as mutants who endangered the purity of the "better" Aryans.

harold said: Bigbang - You really are uproarious. Your nonsense is refuted over and over again, and you just won't let go. Here's a most entertaining example...

Yeah, well, you see raven, Hitler’s book was something we call propaganda—-the use of “Christian” doesn’t really mean a thing except that Hitler was making a half-ass attempt at reconciling Christianity with his survival of the fittest Aryan racial purity and superiority ideas using the social Darwinism of the day. Hitler was about as much a Christian as you are.

Summary - Raven and others objectively demonstrated in a number of ways that Hitler and the nazis rarely or never made mention of Darwinism, but that they frequently claimed that their actions were justified by Christianity. (This does not reflect on non-nazi Christians, of course, any more than the fact that Hitler was a dog lover reflects on me, a non-nazi who also likes dogs. It merely refutes the false claim that "Darwinism" was a source of inspiration for nazis.) Your asinine rebuttal is essentially to claim that Hitler did not sincerely consider himself a Christian - something you could not possibly know - and that he was secretly inspired by Darwinism - again something you could not possibly know. Your entire claim boils down to the outrageous suggestion that you can read Hitler's mind. I actually wonder if you might be some "name" from the DI or ID movement, posting under a pseudonym. You're very familiar with the in-house talking points.

Drakoniz says: “Your insistence of using “Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” is ad hominem, Darwin consider human beings as one race unless you are counting cabbage as humans."

.

What is wrong with you people? The intellectual dishonesty and/or denial you Darwinians display is unbelievable. The implications of Darwin’s preservation of favoured races is blatantly and painfully obvious. In Descent of Man Darwin writes:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

.

So you and everyone can see that it is blatantly obvious that Hitler was taking his cues from Darwin and the social Darwinism of that time (and most certainly not Jesus). HELLO?

Many of you Darwinians seem to be unbelievably ignorant and/or dishonest, and/or deluded . . . but please keep in mind that you’re fooling no one except, apparently, yourselves.

Shebardigan educates Mike in Ontario” “genocide is a documented behavior of chimpanzees.”

.

Thanks, shebardigan, for splaining that to Mike. I expect some amount of unawareness among the YECs that visit PT, but the ignorance among the pro-Darwinians here is rather shocking at times.

bigbang said: Drakoniz says: “Your insistence of using “Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” is ad hominem, Darwin consider human beings as one race unless you are counting cabbage as humans." . What is wrong with you people? The intellectual dishonesty and/or denial you Darwinians display is unbelievable.

The implications of Darwin’s preservation of favoured races is blatantly and painfully obvious.

In Descent of Man Darwin writes: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

So you and everyone can see that it is blatantly obvious that Hitler was taking his cues from Darwin and the social Darwinism of that time (and most certainly not Jesus). HELLO?

Many of you Darwinians seem to be unbelievably ignorant and/or dishonest, and/or deluded . . . but please keep in mind that you’re fooling no one except, apparently, yourselves.

Thanks, shebardigan, for splaining that to Mike. I expect some amount of unawareness among the YECs that visit PT, but the ignorance among the pro-Darwinians here is rather shocking at times.

Thanks, shebardigan, for splaining that to Mike. I expect some amount of unawareness among the YECs that visit PT, but the ignorance among the pro-Darwinians here is rather shocking at times.

"During an early stage in the divergence of the races of man from a common stock, the differences between the races and their number must have been small; consequently as far as their distinguishing characters are concerned, they then had less claim to rank as distinct species than the existing so-called races."

Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, etc., yet if their whole structure be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the "Beagle," with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.

At the period and place, whenever and wherever it was, when man first lost his hairy covering, he probably inhabited a hot country; a circumstance favourable for the frugiferous diet on which, judging from analogy, he subsisted. We are far from knowing how long ago it was when man first diverged from the Catarrhine stock; but it may have occurred at an epoch as remote as the Eocene period; for that the higher apes had diverged from the lower apes as early as the Upper Miocene period is shewn by the existence of the Dryopithecus. We are also quite ignorant at how rapid a rate organisms, whether high or low in the scale, may be modified under favourable circumstances; we know, however, that some have retained the same form during an enormous lapse of time. From what we see going on under domestication, we learn that some of the co-descendants of the same species may be not at all, some a little, and some greatly changed, all within the same period. Thus it may have been with man, who has undergone a great amount of modification in certain characters in comparison with the higher apes. The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies--between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae--between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. 'Anthropological Review,' April 1867, p. 236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. With respect to the absence of fossil remains, serving to connect man with his ape-like progenitors, no one will lay much stress on this fact who reads Sir C. Lyell's discussion (19. 'Elements of Geology,' 1865, pp. 583- 585. 'Antiquity of Man,' 1863, p. 145.), where he shews that in all the vertebrate classes the discovery of fossil remains has been a very slow and fortuitous process. Nor should it be forgotten that those regions which are the most likely to afford remains connecting man with some extinct ape- like creature, have not as yet been searched by geologists.

So you and everyone can see that it is blatantly obvious that Hitler was taking his cues from Darwin and the social Darwinism of that time (and most certainly not Jesus). HELLO?

So you and everyone can see that it is blatantly obvious that Hitler was taking his cues from Darwin and the social Darwinism of that time (and most certainly not Jesus). HELLO?

Even if bigot actually had this magical ability to read Hitler’s mind,

Observations about the sociological climate of Europe, the inscription on Nazi belt buckles and Luther’s writings are simply Non squiturs. Non sequiturs are incapable of lending any rational support to an argument despite their rhetorical efficacy.

Larry, buy a dictionary. 'Nonsequitor' does not mean 'evidence that refutes my idea'.

Jake Boyman said: Observations about the sociological climate of Europe, the inscription on Nazi belt buckles and Luther’s writings are simply Non squiturs. Non sequiturs are incapable of lending any rational support to an argument despite their rhetorical efficacy. Larry, buy a dictionary. 'Nonsequitor' does not mean 'evidence that refutes my idea'.

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

"[T]he völkisch concept of the world recognizes that the primordial racial elements are of the greatest significance for mankind. In principle, the State is looked upon only as a means to an end and this end is the conservation of the racial characteristics of mankind. Therefore on the völkisch principle we cannot admit that one race is equal to another. By recognizing that they are different, the völkisch concept separates mankind into races of superior and inferior quality. On the basis of this recognition it feels bound, in conformity with the eternal Will that dominates the universe, to postulate the victory of the better and stronger and the subordination of the inferior and weaker…. For in a world which would be composed of mongrels and negroids all ideals of human beauty and nobility and all hopes of an idealized future for our humanity would be lost for ever. Hence the folk concept of the world is in profound accord with Nature’s will; because it restores the free play of the forces which will lead the race through stages of sustained reciprocal education towards a higher type, until finally the best portion of mankind will possess the earth and will be free to work in every domain all over the world and even reach spheres that lie outside the earth."

According to Hitler, the Jews threatened the superior race with degradation, but so did the “mongrels and negroids,” the Slavs, the Gypsies, the handicapped, the retarded, and all the other inferior biological misfits. All this doesn’t mean that Darwinism was the sole cause of Hitler’s barbarism. But it does make clear that Darwinism must shoulder its share of the moral burden. -- Wiker

Most historians who specialize in the Nazi era recognize the Darwinian underpinnings of many aspects of Hitler's ideology. --- Richard Weikart

I should amend that. I imagine that there were Nazis who were 'true Christians' but I think that they were Nazis in spite of their Christianity, and not because of it.

Sigh, talk about the blind leading the blind. Why haven't the moderators banished these two to the wall already.

Again FL quote mined a quote mine which goes to show how limited his knowledge is (See full context of Darwin's quote above, he was discussing other things and was merely observing the truth about the colonial powers).

Read at least the synopsis of "descent of man" and "Origin of species", they are on Wikipedia and won't cost you precious time. In my mind quote miners are the lowest of scholars because they have read the entire manuscript yet pick and choose parts out of contexts to mislead their followers.

The idea about breeding better animals are known throughout Europe since the middle ages, not to mention that inbreeding in the Aryan race alone run counter to evolution. These two(bb,FL) have been shown many times that Hitler idea about blood purity has a biblical rather than scientific root yet want to believe what they want to believe.

Fine then, believe what you will it won't change the truth.

So you and everyone can see that it is blatantly obvious that Hitler was taking his cues from Darwin and the social Darwinism of that time (and most certainly not Jesus). HELLO?

Many of you Darwinians seem to be unbelievably ignorant and/or dishonest, and/or deluded … but please keep in mind that you’re fooling no one except, apparently, yourselves.

....was merely observing the truth about the colonial powers

And lets not forget the practice of eugenics in the United States.
Hitler even said that they would be left behind if they did not get there own program going.
Hitler was also impressed with the courts in the South stopping unfit people from propagating.

FL,

You idiot, read the excerpt from "The descent of man" that I gave you above. Or perhaps you have gained bigbang's psychic power somehow and know that in Darwin's mind he was lying when he said all humans are one race apart from superficial characteristics.

No one says Darwin was not a racist, he definitely was. Just like any other men of his time (even Lincoln said he doesn't want equal rights for black people, does he also contribute to the holocaust because he is a racist by our standard?).

However, Darwin justification is cultural not biological and there are no correlations between his scientific theories and Hitler's ideas. He was against Social Darwinism (Which is not even his and should be named Social Lamarckianism instead) because he rightly observed that natural selection doesn't take place in human society.

I am being honest with you here that Hitler didn't take his idea from Darwin. Nowhere does Hitler mention Darwin and he doesn't even understand the basics of Darwin's theory.

You on the other hand, are acting like a hypocrite.

FL, I would not consider what you claim 'we know' to be of much accuracy and relevance. Yes, Darwin was a product of his time and yet his viewpoints on the inferior races was not that 'superior' races should exterminate them, but rather that races would outcompete other races. And of course, you need to understand how Darwin used the term races.

You may want to read Darwin's position and not rely on a few carefully chosen quote mines.

Harold says: “The objective fact is that Hitler stated many times that he was acting according to Christianity, and never claimed to be influenced by Darwin.”

.

Well Harold, I don’t know how to tell you this, but Hitler frequently lied. So it’s better to determine what he and his fellow Nazis actually believed and were thinking from their actions and behavior. And from that it’s blatantly obvious that their genocide, the eugenics, the pogroms and whatnot were being driven by the survival of the fittest social Darwinism of the day far more than by the teachings and admonishments of the Jew named Jesus.

BTW, another quote from Darwin’s Descent of Man, Chapter VIII - On the Races of Man: "The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatization and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Every one who has had the opportunity of comparison, must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the lighthearted, talkative negroes.”

How about that----Darwin determined there were races of man, and that they differed in intellectual facilities. How in the world could you people not know this? Your denial is about as credible as the Germans after the war insisting they didn’t know anything about the eugenics, the concentration camps, the atrocities. Yeah, right.

Yes, Darwin was a product of his time and yet his viewpoints on the inferior races was not that ‘superior’ races should exterminate them, but rather that races would outcompete other races. And of course, you need to understand how Darwin used the term races.

Exodus 21: 7. "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do. 8. But if her master, who had destined her for himself, dislikes her, he shall let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to a foreigner, since he has broken faith with her. 9. If he destines her for his son, he shall treat her like a daughter. 10. If he takes another wife, he shall not withhold her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. 11. If he does not grant her these three things, she shall be given her freedom absolutely, without cost to her.

I'm really confused.

Why does FL (and bigbang for that matter) seem to insist that any given word used in Victorian times by a naturalist in the context of researching the development of species over time must have precisely the same meaning as when it is used in the early 20th century by a nationalist in the context of wanting to deliberately kill off millions of people he doesn't like?

I thought it was pretty darned obvious. Even if they doesn't trust any opinion from PT, it's littered all over the web and in other books about Darwin and books about Hitler.

As a non-scientist even I can understand the huge and obvious differences, and quite frankly, if they keep arguing along these lines my head is just going to implode (so be warned, reading Panda's Thumb can sometimes be seriously damaging to your sanity)!

Why does FL (and bigbang for that matter) seem to insist that any given word used in Victorian times by a naturalist in the context of researching the development of species over time must have precisely the same meaning as when it is used in the early 20th century by a nationalist in the context of wanting to deliberately kill off millions of people he doesn’t like?

Mike from reality: Why does FL (and bigbang for that matter) seem to insist that any given word used in Victorian times by a naturalist in the context of researching the development of species...

The Religious Landscape Survey's findings appear to signal that religion may actually be a less-divisive factor in American political life than had been suggested by the national conversation over the last few decades. Peter Berger, University professor of Sociology and Theology at Boston University, said that the poll confirms that "the so-called Culture War, in its more aggressive form, is mainly waged between rather small groups of people." The combination of such tolerance with high levels of religious participation and intensity in the U.S., says Berger, "is distinctively American - and rather cheering. "

bigbang bigot said: Harold says: “The objective fact is that Hitler stated many times that he was acting according to Christianity, and never claimed to be influenced by Darwin.” . Well Harold, I don’t know how to tell you this, but Hitler frequently lied. So it’s better to determine what he and his fellow Nazis actually believed and were thinking from their actions and behavior. And from that it’s blatantly obvious that their genocide, the eugenics, the pogroms and whatnot were being driven by the survival of the fittest social Darwinism of the day far more than by the teachings and admonishments of the Jew named Jesus.

Bigbang and FL,

Didn't your god commit genocide when he killed all the Egyptian first born?

He certainly committed genocide when he killed all terrestrial life except for Noah's family.

Seems like Hitler is right in line with these death cult christian values.

My Christian God revealed through words and actions of Jesus is: 1) All powerful, 2) Unconditionally loving and ethical.

Seems like your god is neither. How sad. How do you go on in life?

and quite frankly, if they keep arguing along these lines my head is just going to implode

It is frankly astonishing to read the phrase "social Darwinism" used in a discussion about evolutionary theory. Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Darwinism, nothing at all. If people are fooled by the name, then all hope is lost.

Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Darwinism, nothing at all. If people are fooled by the name, then all hope is lost.

Henry J said: Like the Martians in Mars Attacks! at the end of that movie? Wait, they exploded rather than imploded, didn't they. Never mind.

Mike from Oz says: “I just didn’t think the veritable chasm between Darwin & Evolution, and Hitler & Nazism was all that hard to understand.”

.

Well, since Mike is from Oz, after all, I suppose his misunderstanding is not all that surprising. Perhaps most of the Darwinians here are from Oz.

bigbang bigot said: Mike from Oz says: “I just didn’t think the veritable chasm between Darwin & Evolution, and Hitler & Nazism was all that hard to understand.” . Well, since Mike is from Oz, after all, I suppose his misunderstanding is not all that surprising. Perhaps most of the Darwinians here are from Oz.

Mike from Oz said:

Henry J said: Like the Martians in Mars Attacks! at the end of that movie? Wait, they exploded rather than imploded, didn't they. Never mind.

No, no, it'll definitely implode. FL and bigbang are sucking the lifeforce out of my brain with their - umm - whatever it is they're doing.

"Brain, brain, what is brain?" - one of the Immorg, in "spock's Brain".

bigbang said: Mike from Oz says: “I just didn’t think the veritable chasm between Darwin & Evolution, and Hitler & Nazism was all that hard to understand.” . Well, since Mike is from Oz, after all, I suppose his misunderstanding is not all that surprising. Perhaps most of the Darwinians here are from Oz.

Perhaps, bigbang, you should visit here sometime and find out.

As Kevin B alluded to, you might even meet a real Darwinian. There are about 80,000 here who live in a smallish Darwinian enclave in the north of the country. So evil and godless is the community there that literally everyone who gains permanent residence gets suckered into becoming a Darwinian.

Then again, you're unlikely to enjoy it over here. While around 60% of Australians are christians of various flavours, many of those don't go to church, and a whopping 1/5th of the population identify themselves as having no religion (2006 census data). So we're pretty meek & mild when it comes to religious stuff. We put an awful lot of effort into exporting our complete loons to somewhere they'll feel far more comfortable, which is why Ken Ham now resides in the US.

No-one will even so much as raise an eyebrow if you don't go to church here. And quoting from the bible instead of going to the fridge to get another beer is seen as a bit weird.

FL said:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

You nailed it Bigbang. Derailing these lame evo-excuses and getting on down to the truth. All a person has to do is combine DESCENT OF MAN'S little Darwinian ditty (quoted above) with MEIN KAMPF's little Darwinian ditty (quoted below), and the resultant Darwinism Doo-Doo should sufficiently stink to the highest heaven. Sure ,if Hitler HAD read actually read Darwin with the same utter lack of comprehension, not to mention dishonesty, as you two IDIOTS have, he could have convinced himself that "Darwinism" supported his vile and evil agenda. He'd be wrong, as you are. So? We have no evidence that he had more than a glancing, fourth-hand acquaintance with ANY actual science. Basically he was a lying, deluded hack with an agenda, perfectly willing to surround himself with cranks, mental cases and bitter pseudo-intellectual 'dead-enders' -- in that respect, much like you guys.

You nailed it Bigbang. Derailing these lame evo-excuses and getting on down to the truth. All a person has to do is combine DESCENT OF MAN'S little Darwinian ditty (quoted above) with MEIN KAMPF's little Darwinian ditty (quoted below), and the resultant Darwinism Doo-Doo should sufficiently stink to the highest heaven.

Steven Sullivan said: Hitler was a deluded, lying hack with an agenda and zero knowledge of science...

Stanton said:

Larry Boy said: 1) what is a pogrom?

A pogrom is mob violence or a riot that has been instigated by the gentry class against the local Jewish community in order to punish/persecute/instill the fear of God into them: used to happen all the time in Eastern Europe since the late Middle Ages. Czar Nicholas, who commissioned the forging of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was especially fond of pogroms. Do also note that this film is not about how Christianity caused the Holocaust, or even how Christians caused the Holocaust: the film is about how certain Christians (the ones featured in the film) used their power and influence to help facilitate the Holocaust, AND to pound yet another stake into the heart of the oft-revived lie that "Darwinism" was the root of the Holocaust.

Mike of Oz says: “Perhaps, bigbang, you should visit here sometime and find out.”

.

I think you and others here may have missed the point (which often happens here). The Land of Oz is imaginary, as is your imagined “chasm between Darwin & Evolution, and Hitler & Nazism.”

I doubt I’ll be visiting there, so say hi to the Munchkins for me.

Steven Sullivan said: ... Sure, if Hitler HAD actually read Darwin with the same incomprehension and dishonesty as you and bigbang, he could have convinced himself that 'Darwinism' supported his vile and evil worldview. So what? He would have been wrong, like you are. Hitler was a deluded, lying hack with an agenda and zero knowledge of science, content to surround himself with sycophantic cranks, mental cases, and pseudointellects in lieu of real sources of knowledge -- much like you anti-evolution babblers, in that respect.

bigbang bigot said: Mike of Oz says: “Perhaps, bigbang, you should visit here sometime and find out.” . I think you and others here may have missed the point (which often happens here). The Land of Oz is imaginary, as is your imagined “chasm between Darwin & Evolution, and Hitler & Nazism.” I doubt I’ll be visiting there, so say hi to the Munchkins for me.

FL aka mellotron spews:

"You mean books like “The Descent of Man” and “Mein Kampf”, of which the latter clearly borrows from the Darwinism & Darwinian-Ethics of the former? "

As has been pointed out, FL/Mellotron is vehemently ignorant and filled with hatred and disdain for understanding. He claims a journalism background, yet relies - without question - on the ignorant tripe regurgitated by right-wing creationist zealots. He refuses to acknowledge his errors, and is clearly on a mission to disseminate lies for Jebus in order to prop up his mythological tendencies.

That is, he is a typical internet creationist nitwit.

Lying FL/mellotron vomits:

"We KNOW that Mr. Darwin considered whites (especially Euro-whites) as the top of the evolutionary food chain while the “Negroes” were barely two pee-pees above pure ape. We KNOW that Mr. Darwin considered it inevitable that the “savage races” were going to get whackola’d by the “civilized races” (and Mr. Darwin made no bones about who was supposed to fit in what category). "

And Mr.Phelps - he's a TROOO Christian, right?

And Mr. Kennedy? The one with all the fake degrees (now a dead non-creationist)? Christian.
Jailbird imbecile Hovind - Troo christian.

KKK - claim bible tells them blacks are inferior (which it does).

Look in the mirror, moron.

Oh - and love your FOX news style "journalism" - if you write articles as well as you cob together the gibberish you do here, you've a future solely on right-wing internet websites, where incompetence is a requisite.

FL, I would reconsider throwing around accusations of racism, if I were you.

Some of us have a lot closer, lot harsher encounters than some intellectual exercises and rhetorical flourishes.

Close enough to know you have no idea of what you're talking about---and your own position, politically and socially speaking, is far from free of racism itself...

think you and others here may have missed the point (which often happens here). The Land of Oz is imaginary, as is your imagined “chasm between Darwin & Evolution, and Hitler & Nazism.”

Not to mention one of Darwin's teacher was a freed slave.

John Edmonstone

Person who taught Charles Darwin Taxidermy and fuelled his curiosity on evolution

John was a freed black slave from Guyana, South America, who made his living in Edinburgh teaching University students the art of taxidermy. He lived at 37 Lothian Street in Edinburgh, just a few doors down from where Charles Darwin and his brother, Erasmus, lived. John learned his trade from Charles Waterton, an early 1800's British naturalist.

While Darwin was a student at Edinburgh University he hired John to teach him taxidermy. The two of them often sat together for conversation and John would fill Darwin's head with vivid pictures of the tropical rain forests of South America. These pleasant conversations with John may have later inspired Darwin to dream about exploring the tropics. In any event, the taxidermy skills Darwin learned from him were indispensable during his voyage aboard H.M.S. Beagle in 1831.

http://www.100greatblackbritons.com/bios/john_edmonstone.html

Larry Boy said: Alternatively we can evaluate the empirical claims sincerely at the risk of being persuaded by them. If we find that the claims are correct, we must become racist ourselves, but if we find they are incorrect we will claim that those who advocate scientific racisms are not True Scientist(TM), meaning they fail to evaluate the data properly because of their biases.

Larry Boy said: Alternatively we can evaluate the empirical claims sincerely at the risk of being persuaded by them. If we find that the claims are correct, we must become racist ourselves, but if we find they are incorrect we will claim that those who advocate scientific racisms are not True Scientist(TM), meaning they fail to evaluate the data properly because of their biases. Observations about the popularity of scientific racism among scientists are non sequiters of no interest.

Sorry about any double comments. There seems to be a problem with the browser cache.

Paul Burnett said:

Christophe Thill said: That Darwin was "theologically trained" looks like mere fact.

Hitler was "theologically trained" - here are some quotes from Hitler: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - and "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them..." (more at http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm - see also http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm ) Stalin was "theologically trained" - he studied to be a Russian Orthodox priest, but his views on religion evolved, too. John Hagee was "theologically trained" - Rousas John Rushdoony and Dennis James Kennedy were "theologically trained" - it sounds like our friend "FL" (above) may have been "theologically trained." Where do you want to go with this "theological training" meme, Christophe?

Mariano said:

Paul Burnett said:

Christophe Thill said: That Darwin was "theologically trained" looks like mere fact.

Hitler was "theologically trained" - here are some quotes from Hitler: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - and "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them..." (more at http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm - see also http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm ) Stalin was "theologically trained" - he studied to be a Russian Orthodox priest, but his views on religion evolved, too. John Hagee was "theologically trained" - Rousas John Rushdoony and Dennis James Kennedy were "theologically trained" - it sounds like our friend "FL" (above) may have been "theologically trained." Where do you want to go with this "theological training" meme, Christophe?

So you actually believe whatever Hitler said?!?! Large portions of evilbible.com have been considered, dissected and declared fallacious on very many levels. Evidence of this is found at this URL: http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/07/evilbiblecom-is-dead.html Moreover, you should really read "From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist" which will teach you to be skeptical about Hitler's statements and self-serving quotations such as those which you presented: http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/04/from-zeitgeist-to-poltergeist-part-1-of.html