You knew it was coming, didn't you?

meh, the rant blaming "tolerance of Muslims" and "multiculturalism" beat it by nearly a whole day*. antievolutionists just aren't trying as hard as they used to

*i'd put in a link but i'd have to go through Fark to find it again, and i'm just too lazy

I come here to get updates on this issue, but (maybe just due to my long exposure) have tired at anyone on the side of science bothering to be surprised, much less outraged, by someone as useless as Klinghoffer.
This isn't "Man Bites Dog" news. It isn't even "Dog Bites Man" news. I'd characterize it as "Dog sniffs it's* own butt" news, y'know, like the famous The Onion headline: "SHIT STINKS!!!!"

*In tribute to the thousands of Xians and Creationists

Klinghoffer the DI liar: There's one element to his thinking that you predictably leave out, PZ: the evolutionary one, as he writes himself in his manifesto. See my Beliefnet blog entry on same.

My humble blog has been quoted by Panda's Thumb. Verily, this is the pinochle of my career.

Approval of inter-racial breeding is predicated on idiotic Christian dogma that God’s children must love their enemies (a concept JEWS totally reject); and on LIBERAL/MARXIST/JEW propaganda that all men/races are created equal. These genocidal ideologies, preached from the American pulpits, taught in American schools, legislated in the halls of Congress (confirming TALMUDIC conviction that goyim are stupid sheep), are expected to produce a single, superintelligent, beautiful, non-White “American” population. Eliminating forever racism, inequality, bigotry and war. As with ALL LIBERAL ideologies, miscegenation is totally inconsistent with Natural Law: the species are improved through in-breeding, natural selection and mutation. Only the strong survive. Cross-breeding Whites with species lower on the evolutionary scale diminishes the White gene-pool while increasing the number of physiologically, psychologically and behaviorally deprived mongrels. Throughout history improvident Whites have miscegenated. The “brotherhood” concept is not new (as LIBERALS pretend) nor are the results — which are inevitably disastrous for the White Race — evident today, for example, in the botched populations of Cuba, Mexico, Egypt, India, and the inner cities of contemporary America.

HEGEL believed that Man’s salvation would come through Reason. He believed that Reason operated according to the Dialectical Method, in which an Idea (Thesis) is challenged by its opposite (Antithesis), and the two subsequently metamorphose into an interfused Whole (Synthesis). Hegel saw this method working in logic; in World history; in management of the State; and in the establishing the Spirit of the Age. Hegal, an idealist who would have ridiculed Marx, believed the Dialectic produced harmonious and continuous evolution within the Nation-State and between its component parts. FEUERBACH, a materialist, said man is what he eats: matter in motion, nothing more. This concept appears, also, in Freud’s and Boas’ rantings. Marx stated there is no God therefore man is not accountable for his acts to some divine Judge. Man is without soul or free-will therefore without significant individual value. He is an evolutionary animal dependent upon his mind (Reason) for salvation. Marx believed Man's destiny is determined solely by his environment (Marx, apparently, never learned of his nemesis, Gregor Johann Mendel (1822- 1884), after whom Mendelism is named — the study of all things Genetic). In nature everything is evolving because everything is determined by its opposite: ergo, the thesis synthesizes with the antithesis thus becoming a new and different thesis — this process repeats itself ad infinitum. In society, therefore, conflict (Dialectical Materialism) is inevitable, essential and continuous until the entire structure (State) collapses. Because this fate is inevitable, and change is progress, why wait? Revolt. Now. Destroy! Kill! Bourgeoisie v. Proletariat = Revolution = dictate = ONE WORLD JEW GOVERNMENT. The ILLUMINATI sponsors Marxists/ Anarchists.

The DI has stooped to a new low if it tries to equate white supremacist rantings with "Darwinism." They should have their First Amendement rights taken away at this point, they have nothing to contribute to America.

KP said: The DI has stooped to a new low if it tries to equate white supremacist rantings with "Darwinism." They should have their First Amendement rights taken away at this point, they have nothing to contribute to America.

a lurker said: Hitler hated tobacco so unless you are a chain smoker you must be evil, evil I say. Silly? Why yes. But it is exactly the same as the creationist reasoning.

Must be where the next antisemitic atrocity is being planned. Not keeping it very secret though, they have their own journal. Who would have suspected the plotters to be located at universities in Israel? {For the slow, this is sarcasm}

Why am I not surprised that David Klinghoffer is demonstrating once more how and why his Brown University education was utterly worthless?

Approximately one year ago he had published in the Brown Alumni Magazine a rather self-indulgent, self-serving essay explaining why he would consider sending his kids to a bastion of extreme liberalism like his alma mater:

http://www.brownalumnimagazine.com/january/february_2008/how_brown_turned_me_into_a_right_wing_religious_conservative_._._._1893.html

(Thankfully David and I never ovelapped in college. I wrote a terse rebuttal to his breathtaking inanity that was published in the following issue (which you can find under mail in the march/april issue).)

John Kwok said: Why am I not surprised that David Klinghoffer is demonstrating once more how and why his Brown University education was utterly worthless?

John Kwok said: Why am I not surprised that David Klinghoffer is demonstrating once more how and why his Brown University education was utterly worthless?

Stanton and KP,

You ought to read his essay. It literally reads as though it could be an "outtake" from either Saturday Night Live or the Jon Stewart show, or perhaps even the Colbert Report.

Anyway, am about to turn in for the night. Have spent last night and will again, this evening, volunteering at the World Science Festival. Am looking forward to hearing Ken Miller and Lawrence Krauss speak on Science, Faith and Religion this Saturday.

Cheers,

John

@ KP -

Some of the smartest people I know never attended an Ivy League institution. In Klinghoffer's case, he wasted both his - and Brown's - time by studying there, judging from his ongoing inane conduct as an alumnus.

John Kwok said: Stanton and KP, You ought to read his essay.

John Kwok said: Stanton and KP, You ought to read his essay. It literally reads as though it could be an "outtake" from either Saturday Night Live or the Jon Stewart show, or perhaps even the Colbert Report.

Did Hitler say anything about "the horridly cruel works of nature" Darwin mentioned?

HG Wells wanted to wipe out most of the world, presumably including the Jews, as he was anti-Jewish. D'you think he influenced A.H.?

In Jebus Price' name.

In a certain way I was hoping the people like David Klinghoffer wouldn't try to equate the murder to the theory of evolution. People have always hide behind religious views to justify their hatred for others. However, we must recognize that people like David Klinghoffer are trying to scare people who are foolish enough to seek spiritual advice from him.

Something that was pointed out in a blog article I read a while ago - and which I've never seen discussed except in that one article - is that creationists and evolutionists agree with respect to within-species improvement. Evolutionists believe that populations can adapt to their environment, becoming more fit. So do creationists. The difference is that evolutionists - based on mountains of evidence - believe (or accept) that given enough time and suitable environmental and migratory (or sexual segregation) conditions, entirely new species can emerge from a common ancestor. Creationists would simply say that mosquitoes can become more adapted to a given environment or adapt to a new or changed environment, but mosquitoes will always be mosquitoes.

Now that's within-species changes. What about eugenics? Well, don't both of groups reject it out right? Darwin did from the get-go saying that to engage in deliberate acts of selecting who gets to live and reproduce and who doesn't, we sacrifice our nobility and moral virtue.

Yes, creationists often insist upon their acceptance of evolution within a "kind". Some have even made up a word for "kind" - "baramin" (look it up online, and Wikipedia has an article on "baraminology") - and borrow the scientific term "microevolution".

One major way that the creationists differ from the pro-evolution people is that the creationists believe that without purposeful, intelligent intervention, the kind - let's say "mankind" for example - will deteriorate, objecting to the idea that "random mutations and natural selection" is productive. Which of these sounds more like eugenics? Not that creationism bears any responsibility for eugenics. It's probably more just a leftover in both cases from pre-scientific ideas about animal breeding and inherited nobility.

KP said:

John Kwok said: Stanton and KP, You ought to read his essay.

I tried, I couldn't get very far.

Anthony said: In a certain way I was hoping the people like David Klinghoffer wouldn't try to equate the murder to the theory of evolution. People have always hide behind religious views to justify their hatred for others. However, we must recognize that people like David Klinghoffer are trying to scare people who are foolish enough to seek spiritual advice from him.

novparl: HG Wells wanted to wipe out most of the world, presumably including the Jews, as he was anti-Jewish. D’you think he influenced A.H.?

Hitler 1922: 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 and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

Alan Macneill partial quote: Like a creationist, Hitler asserts fixity of kinds: "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 Like a creationist, Hitler claims that God made man: "For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x Like a creationist, Hitler affirms that humans existed "from the very beginning", and could not have evolved from apes: "From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today." - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im

Have y'all read the comments to the article? Klinghoffer's getting punk'd, junk'd, debunk'd and defunk'd all around. His protestations of innocence, and pathetic attempts to change the subject and pretend his "point" is being proven, make the whole thing all the more laughable.

Like I said on his site: Recovering the wisdom of the Hebrew Bible -- UR DOIN IT WRONG!

Raging Bee said: Have y'all read the comments to the article? Klinghoffer's getting punk'd, junk'd, debunk'd and defunk'd all around. His protestations of innocence, and pathetic attempts to change the subject and pretend his "point" is being proven, make the whole thing all the more laughable. Like I said on his site: Recovering the wisdom of the Hebrew Bible -- UR DOIN IT WRONG!

raven said:

novparl: HG Wells wanted to wipe out most of the world, presumably including the Jews, as he was anti-Jewish. D’you think he influenced A.H.?

HG Wells was a science fiction writer. Who even cares? Got me. Hitler does detail his influences often. They usually include god and jesus. One quote of many is below.

Hitler 1922: 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 and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

Hitler was a xian and a creationist.

Alan Macneill partial quote: Like a creationist, Hitler asserts fixity of kinds: "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 Like a creationist, Hitler claims that God made man: "For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x Like a creationist, Hitler affirms that humans existed "from the very beginning", and could not have evolved from apes: "From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today." - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im

David Klinghoffer uses a common technique made popular by someone he should despise. The Big Lie of Joseph Goebbels.

SLC said: One should be a little careful about proclaiming Hitler to be a Christian. It is quite true that in his writings and public speeches, he claimed to be a believing Christian. However, it is my understanding that, in private, he was contemptuous of religion in general and Christianity in particular.

I recommend the comments by Gabriel Hanna, for example the one dated June 11, 2009 8:41 PM.

Von Brunn was sick beyond either Klinghoffer's or my ability to understand. But let's not try to rationalize everyday subjects as motivation for his sickness. He wasn't driven to shooting by Darwin, he was driven to shooting by being crazy. It's not only pointless but disingenuous to lay the blame on a scientific theory, so why bother? I'd suggest the IDiots just drop the subject and treat the whole thing as it should be treated: a senseless tragedy.

Otherwise, given all the rot about "Liberals" in his writing, some might make a more persuasive (though really just as invalid) case for his politics being more causative than whatever misconceived ideas about evolution he might have possessed. Given the DI's own abundant political rhetoric, such an examination might make them uncomfortable.

John Kwok said: Why am I not surprised that David Klinghoffer is demonstrating once more how and why his Brown University education was utterly worthless? Approximately one year ago he had published in the Brown Alumni Magazine a rather self-indulgent, self-serving essay explaining why he would consider sending his kids to a bastion of extreme liberalism like his alma mater: http://www.brownalumnimagazine.com/january/february_2008/how_brown_turned_me_into_a_right_wing_religious_conservative_._._._1893.html (Thankfully David and I never ovelapped in college. I wrote a terse rebuttal to his breathtaking inanity that was published in the following issue (which you can find under mail in the march/april issue).)

Dave Wisker said:

John Kwok said: Why am I not surprised that David Klinghoffer is demonstrating once more how and why his Brown University education was utterly worthless? Approximately one year ago he had published in the Brown Alumni Magazine a rather self-indulgent, self-serving essay explaining why he would consider sending his kids to a bastion of extreme liberalism like his alma mater: http://www.brownalumnimagazine.com/january/february_2008/how_brown_turned_me_into_a_right_wing_religious_conservative_._._._1893.html (Thankfully David and I never ovelapped in college. I wrote a terse rebuttal to his breathtaking inanity that was published in the following issue (which you can find under mail in the march/april issue).)

Don't feel bad, John. Jonathan Wells got his Biology PhD at my alma mater, to my everlasting chagrin.

Dave,

I don't feel bad that Klinghoffer is a fellow alumnus. But I DO FEEL BAD when I have to think of him and Bobby Jindal too at the same time (Not to mention ex-Watergate plumber Chuck Colson.).

Thanks,

John

P. S. Don't know if you've been reading Chris Mooney's blog, but Larry Fafarman has stopped by and I finally forced him to admit that Behe was writing about coevolution in his "The Edge of Evolution" (He told me that Behe claimed he wasn't after I had told him that you and I had recognized that Behe's book was "one long argument" on coevolution, and that we both realized, independently of each other, that it was a rather pathetic attempt at trying to explain biology by invoking it (unwittingly of course).

Hi Stanton and KP,

This is what I wrote - which was published in the March/April 2008 issue of the Brown Alumni Magazine - in reply to Klinghoffer's dreadful exercise in self adulation published in the previous issue (Incidentally, I believe that mine was the harshest response, and the one that went right for the jugular.):

"In their book Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, philosopher of science Barbara Forrest and biologist Paul Gross expose the crypto-fascist agenda of David Klinghoffer's Discovery Institute. Klinghoffer's inane rant on his own political evolution is just another example of Discovery Institute propaganda."

"The Discovery Institute zealously embraces fascist practices against its critics, ranging from promoting lies, omissions, and gross distortions of scientific research to ad hominem attacks on such prominent critics as Brown biology professor Ken Miller to, finally, even censorship."

"If there is any redeeming virtue in Klinghoffer's essay, it is his concluding observation, emphasizing the value of a good education like Brown's that is 'grounded in independent thought.' It is an observation that his Discovery Institute peers would reject, as they most likely view Brown as yet another bastion of secular-humanist liberalism. It's also an observation that Klinghoffer himself doesn't follow, judging from the title of his forthcoming book, How Would God Vote? Why the Bible Commands You to be a Conservative. Religiously devout scientists like eminent ecologist Mike Rosenzweig and, of course, Ken Miller, demonstrate the philosophical and religious fallacies that comprise Klinghoffer's inane thinking through their commitment to separating their superb scientific research from their devout religious faith. Did Klinghoffer truly learn the value of a Brown education? Judging by his essay, the answer, regrettably, must be no."

Is that a surprise? I think I'm gonna have a heart attack from that surprise!

For a long time, it's been apparent that the Discovery Institute doesn't understand evolution. They attack, not evolution, but their mistaken impression of what evolution is.

This exploitation shows that the Discovery Institute and von Brunn both have the same misconceptions concerning evolution.

Dan said: For a long time, it's been apparent that the Discovery Institute doesn't understand evolution. They attack, not evolution, but their mistaken impression of what evolution is. This exploitation shows that the Discovery Institute and von Brunn both have the same misconceptions concerning evolution.

Did Klinghoffer truly learn the value of a Brown education? Judging by his essay, the answer, regrettably, must be no.

— John Kwok

Frank J said:

Dan said: For a long time, it's been apparent that the Discovery Institute doesn't understand evolution. They attack, not evolution, but their mistaken impression of what evolution is. This exploitation shows that the Discovery Institute and von Brunn both have the same misconceptions concerning evolution.

How do you think they'd react if they did understand evolution? Do you seriously think they'd say "Oops, we stand corrected?" Note: By "they" I mean the DI - von Brunn is probably indeed incapable of understanding evolution.

Phillip Johnson said: "There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable [to evolution]. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove ... No product is ready for competition in the educational world." http://tara54.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution

But I do find it notable that David Klinghoffer effectively boasts "Hey! I've got the same misconceptions as a murderous psychopath!"

SLC said:

Dave Wisker said:

John Kwok said: Why am I not surprised that David Klinghoffer is demonstrating once more how and why his Brown University education was utterly worthless? Approximately one year ago he had published in the Brown Alumni Magazine a rather self-indulgent, self-serving essay explaining why he would consider sending his kids to a bastion of extreme liberalism like his alma mater: http://www.brownalumnimagazine.com/january/february_2008/how_brown_turned_me_into_a_right_wing_religious_conservative_._._._1893.html (Thankfully David and I never ovelapped in college. I wrote a terse rebuttal to his breathtaking inanity that was published in the following issue (which you can find under mail in the march/april issue).)

Don't feel bad, John. Jonathan Wells got his Biology PhD at my alma mater, to my everlasting chagrin.

As did Duane Gish. One must not also forget that Philip Johnson was a professor of law there.

Dave Wisker said:

SLC said:

Dave Wisker said:

John Kwok said: Why am I not surprised that David Klinghoffer is demonstrating once more how and why his Brown University education was utterly worthless? Approximately one year ago he had published in the Brown Alumni Magazine a rather self-indulgent, self-serving essay explaining why he would consider sending his kids to a bastion of extreme liberalism like his alma mater: http://www.brownalumnimagazine.com/january/february_2008/how_brown_turned_me_into_a_right_wing_religious_conservative_._._._1893.html (Thankfully David and I never ovelapped in college. I wrote a terse rebuttal to his breathtaking inanity that was published in the following issue (which you can find under mail in the march/april issue).)

Don't feel bad, John. Jonathan Wells got his Biology PhD at my alma mater, to my everlasting chagrin.

As did Duane Gish. One must not also forget that Philip Johnson was a professor of law there.

Oh nice. Kick a Bear while he's down.

SLC said:

Dave Wisker said:

SLC said:

Dave Wisker said:

John Kwok said: Why am I not surprised that David Klinghoffer is demonstrating once more how and why his Brown University education was utterly worthless? Approximately one year ago he had published in the Brown Alumni Magazine a rather self-indulgent, self-serving essay explaining why he would consider sending his kids to a bastion of extreme liberalism like his alma mater: http://www.brownalumnimagazine.com/january/february_2008/how_brown_turned_me_into_a_right_wing_religious_conservative_._._._1893.html (Thankfully David and I never ovelapped in college. I wrote a terse rebuttal to his breathtaking inanity that was published in the following issue (which you can find under mail in the march/april issue).)

Don't feel bad, John. Jonathan Wells got his Biology PhD at my alma mater, to my everlasting chagrin.

As did Duane Gish. One must not also forget that Philip Johnson was a professor of law there.

Oh nice. Kick a Bear while he's down.

Actually, I am also a graduate of UC Berkeley.

The main point to understand is this:
If the science of Evolution has taught us anything, it is that variety is essential to a population, and no individuals in a population are "more advanced" or "stronger" than the others; just different.

Evolution has taught us to embrace those of all different genetic backgrounds, because fitness is determined by the scenario.

Variety is the most essential feature of any population. Eugenics evolutionarily hurts us.

The sad thing is, not only do crazies like Von Brunn not realize it, but the creationists and IDiots also have no clue.

Creationists, Intelligent Designists, and their campaign of misinformation are more likely to blame for any misinterpretations of Evolutionary Science than the science itself.

Seriously. This guy could have said: "Evolution says Apples are bad, so I can kill Jews" and he would have been just as logically sound.

The main point to understand is this: If the science of Evolution has taught us anything, it is that variety is essential to a population, and no individuals in a population are “more advanced” or “stronger” than the others; just different.

Evolution has taught us to embrace those of all different genetic backgrounds, because fitness is determined by the scenario.

Variety is the most essential feature of any population.

Eugenics evolutionarily hurts us.

The sad thing is, not only do crazies like Von Brunn not realize it, but the creationists and IDiots also have no clue. Creationists, Intelligent Designists, and their campaign of misinformation are more likely to blame for any misinterpretations of Evolutionary Science than the science itself. Seriously. This guy could have said: “Evolution says Apples are bad, so I can kill Jews” and he would have been just as logically sound.

John Kwok said: And don't bother replying to this, SLC. I'm off to a WSF session featuring Lawrence Krauss and Ken Miller:

John Kwok said: You just reminded:

My last reply should have been to the Kwok, Kwok.

My last reply should have been this observation: That you're as much a delusional twit LSS as Troy, Sal Cordova, Steve P., Larry Fafarman, David Klinghoffer, Casey Luskin, Bill Dembski, Paul Nelson, Johnnie Wells and Mikey Behe.

SLC said:

John Kwok said: And don't bother replying to this, SLC. I'm off to a WSF session featuring Lawrence Krauss and Ken Miller:

John Kwok said: You just reminded:

My last reply should have been to the Kwok, Kwok.

My last reply should have been this observation: That you're as much a delusional twit LSS as Troy, Sal Cordova, Steve P., Larry Fafarman, David Klinghoffer, Casey Luskin, Bill Dembski, Paul Nelson, Johnnie Wells and Mikey Behe.

The Kwok Kwok who's been banned at PZed and ERV and wasted an entire thread back in December on this web site posting nonsense about President Obamas' birth certificate (like his hero James von Brunn) calls others a delusional twit. The Kwok Kwok lacks sufficient intellect to grab his undoubtedly considerable hindquarters with both hands.

SLC said: One should be a little careful about proclaiming Hitler to be a Christian. It is quite true that in his writings and public speeches, he claimed to be a believing Christian. However, it is my understanding that, in private, he was contemptuous of religion in general and Christianity in particular.

I rather think those who have concluded Hitler was not a believer, should look up the Christian Identity Movement sometime.

here's a quick one:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/cr_ident.htm

It's not that people like Hitler WEREN'T Christian, it's that they thought modern xianity had been entirely corrupted by jewish influence.

It's an idea that started with Martin Luther, and is still with us (much to any sane person's regret) today.

likewise, the most likely case for someone as anti-semitic and neo-nazi as Von Brunn is that he is a member of the Christian Identity movement.

It fits perfectly.

and no, I most assuredly am not interested in hearing any "No True Scottsman!" arguments.

there are 36000 sects of xianity, so once you all set up the cage matches and determine a final victor, you ALL are employing the same fallacy IMO.

Dave,

As always, your excellent commentary is illuminating with regards to the nature of Hitler's "acceptance" of Christanity.

I've done a little digging and have found what could be useful websites which illustrate Hitler's relationship:

http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/AdolfHitlerChristian.htm

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1699/was-hitler-a-christian

http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/hitlrxt.htm

http://nobeliefs.com/hitler-myths.htm

Regards,

John

John Kwok said: Dave, As always, your excellent commentary is illuminating with regards to the nature of Hitler's "acceptance" of Christanity. I've done a little digging and have found what could be useful websites which illustrate Hitler's relationship: http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/AdolfHitlerChristian.htm http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1699/was-hitler-a-christian http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/hitlrxt.htm http://nobeliefs.com/hitler-myths.htm Regards, John

SLC said: I find much more persuasive testimony from individuals who heard Hitler in private and it is my understanding that his private conversations were at great variance from his public utterances.

SLC being wrong: I find much more persuasive testimony from individuals who heard Hitler in private and it is my understanding that his private conversations were at great variance from his public utterances.

SLC being wrong again: The discussion of Hitlers’ religious beliefs always boils down to atheist sites proclaiming him a believing Christian and religious sites proclaiming him an atheist.

Raven, I have never heard that the Tischgesprache was tampered with after the war by Christians, and I have read Bulloch, Trevor-Roper, Waite and others who used it as reference material. All took it to be a record of Hitler's spontaneous monologue - "conversation", for Hitler, was a procession of one - which had to be treated with caution for the reasons I stated above, but was nevertheless accurate enough, though no doubt Bormann did some editing.

Where did you hear that it had been tampered with?

Raven, I have never heard that the Tischgesprache was tampered with after the war by Christians, and I have read Bulloch, Trevor-Roper, Waite and others who used it as reference material.

http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/2002/nov02/carrier.php Was Catholic Hitler "Anti-Christian"? On the Trail of Bogus Quotes By Richard C. Carrier This essay excerpts research currently under review for publication by the journal German Studies Review. We often hear accusations that "Adolf Hitler was an atheist and look what he did!" The idea that Hitler believed in God, that he even claimed Christ as his own, is so shocking to people that they will go to any lengths to deny it. But the notion that Hitler was an atheist has already been soundly refuted.1 He was unmistakably a god-fearing Christian. It is claimed that the quotations and evidence of Hitler's belief were a ruse, propaganda for the benefit of his Nazi followers. This is hardly plausible. After all, if Hitler had to pretend to be a god-fearing Christian to sway his Nazi supporters, that means Nazis had to have been god-fearing Christians. Certainly, Nazism in general was no kind of atheism. It was without doubt a Christian movement, even rabidly anti-atheist. Like the McCarthyites that came after them, the Nazis equated atheism with their arch-enemy Bolshevism. Atheism was among their many charges against the Jews. Even the SS wore Gott mit uns, "God is with us," on their belt buckles.2 This was the official position of the Nazi party. And it went to the very same extremes that we see among Christian Fundamentalists in America today. For instance, read this excerpt from the 24th principle of the Nazi party, from the infamous Twenty Five Points (1920): We demand the freedom of religion in the Reich so long as they do not endanger the position of the state or adversely affect the moral standards of the German race. As such the Party represents a positively Christian position without binding itself to one particular faith. Likewise, the 1933 Nazi Concordat with the Catholic Church, Article 21: Catholic religious instruction in elementary, senior, secondary and vocational schools constitutes a regular portion of the curriculum, and is to be taught in accordance with the principles of the Catholic Church. In religious instruction, special care will be taken to inculcate patriotic, civic and social consciousness and sense of duty in the spirit of the Christian Faith and the moral code, precisely as in the case of other subjects. So there can be no doubt that the Nazis were thoroughly and devotedly Christian, eager to inculcate Christian theism for future generations. This is especially important, since hundreds of thousands of Nazis carried out the Final Solution, not one man. If they disagreed with Hitler's orders, they could have ignored them or sandbagged the process. To the contrary, all survivor accounts agree: Nazis involved in carrying out Hitler's orders were eager, even zealous for the task. So what Hitler himself believed is almost irrelevant. Had he rejected certain elements of Nazism openly, he would likely have been deposed and replaced with a more suitably Christian villain to carry out the Final Solution. Keeps going for a long time

While this is a bit off topic, it is IMHO worth noting:

It has been brought to my attention that the Templeton Foundation is funding research at the University of Chicago, which, of course, is ironic, since University of Chicago evolutionary geneticist Jerry Coyne rejected the World Science Festival’s invitation to appear on one of its panel discussions partly because WSF is receiving funding from the Templeton Foundation. Would you say that is a case of calling the kettle black? Me thinks so.

Dear Ichthyic,

Of course you've completely forgotten the facts that I've saluted Obama for his cabinet picks in science and technology and have reminded folks that two prominent alumni of my high school alma mater - David Axelrod - and Attorney General Eric Holder - are key advisors to the President of thte United States.

I think it's hysterically funny that Jerry Coyne did whine and moan about the Templeton Foundation's financial involvement with the World Science Festival when his institution of higher learning, the University of Chicago, currently receives millions of dollars in research grant money from the very Templeton Foundation that he's criticizing.

I think it is also germane that I mention this for the mere fact that he's paid Columbia University professor of physics and mathematics Brian Greene and journalist Tracy Day (Mrs. Brian Greene) - the co-founders of the World Science Festival - the same kind of backhanded compliment that he paid the National Center for Science Education before his harsh criticism of it simply because he thinks it has an adopted an "accomodationist" stance towards religion that somehow favors theistic evolutionists over militant atheists like himself and PZ Myers (Coyne could have accepted the WSF invitation and done what his replacement on the panel - Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss - did, which was to state politely how much he disagreed with the Templeton Foundation's support of WSF and the very rationale for having a panel session on science and religion (Krauss wasn't only polite, but he was funny. He suggested that a panel on science and pornography would be far more appropriate; an idea which received a cheerful, enthusiastic "Second" from that "straight-laced" "theistic evolutionist", Brown biology professor Ken Miller.).)

So really, for Coyne to complain about his WSF invitation is, quite simply, an exercise in painting the kettle black.

Respectfully yours,

John

P. S. Of course I don't speak on behalf of either Brown University or Stuyvesant High School or any of my academic alma maters, period. I am merely a private citizen voicing my opinion here at Panda's Thumb, and so are you, but unlike you, I am not indulging in an absurd ad hominem attack of the kind you've stated.

John Kwok said: While this is a bit off topic, it is IMHO worth noting: It has been brought to my attention that the Templeton Foundation is funding research at the University of Chicago, which, of course, is ironic, since University of Chicago evolutionary geneticist Jerry Coyne rejected the World Science Festival’s invitation to appear on one of its panel discussions partly because WSF is receiving funding from the Templeton Foundation. Would you say that is a case of calling the kettle black? Me thinks so.

Richard C. Carrier: Stevens and Cameron are certainly guilty of some shameful incompetence, if not outright dishonesty. Nor does Trevor-Roper have much of an excuse. But the real culprit is François Genoud. David Irving tells how Genoud attempted to hoax him in the 1970s with a forgery of "Hitler's Last Testament."7 Genoud even confessed the forgery to Irving, declaring in his defense, "But it's just what Hitler would have said, isn't it?" He was evidently willing to perpetrate a hoax, thinking it permissible to fabricate the words of Hitler if it was what he believed Hitler "would have said." His motives for doctoring the Table Talk may be unfathomable. Genoud was a very strange man with a colorful history: a Swiss banker and Nazi spy who laundered money for the Third Reich, a self-professed neo-Nazi even up to his suicide in 1996 (though, stranger still, he never supported the holocaust), a voracious purchaser and profiteer of Nazi archives, and an admitted financer of terrorists.8

Thank you, Raven, for that link. A very interesting read. Oddly enough, it reminded me somewhat of scholarly discussions about the origin of the Synoptic Gospels, which are also more or less elaborated translated expansions of a base text now lost, but are further from it than these from their original.

What has emerged from this is the usual historian's perplexity over provenance and authenticity. I believe that what I wrote earlier still stands: Hitler was a Christian adherent and a communicant of the Catholic church, and remained so to his death. To the Catholic church then he was a faithful son of the Church. His private beliefs are, however, impossible to reconstruct in any sort of reliable detail from his words, and will always remain somewhat enigmatic; but they are also irrelevant when placed beside his acts and those of his followers. (I think it likely that had the beliefs been examined by the Catholic church, he would have been found to be in heresy, but this is of no importance.)

As a general aside, I would agree that a politician's words to close adherents in private, if reliably recorded (which is very rare) are more to be accepted as an index to his/her real mind than any public statement. The trouble is that in this case we are dealing with Hitler, not any other politician, and moreover, the utterances from the 'Table Talk' were public statements, as Hitler was well aware. Extempore possibly, but nevertheless. So were these statements real accounts of his beliefs?

It is here that one embarks on an examination, not of Hitler's ideas and beliefs, but of his mind. For those interested in it, I recommend Robert G L Waite's "The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler". My edition is Basic Books, New York, 1977. This includes a chapter on spurious sources that could be read just for itself. Hitler seems to have inspired a raft of them.

Parts of this book are known to be forged. The parts forged make Hitler look like a Xian critic.

As a general aside, I would agree that a politician’s words to close adherents in private, if reliably recorded (which is very rare) are more to be accepted as an index to his/her real mind than any public statement.

Forged or not, it’s worth noting that none of these passages (to my knowledge) have Hitler denying the existence of God or the divinity of Christ; they just have Hitler criticizing the Church and the religion of Christianity.

As a matter of interest, who were the other Nazis who were Christians? I.e. like Bormann, Himmler, Goering (provably anti-Christian). Where did Himmler mention the Christian thinking behind the Shoah? Christians often are friends with local clergy. Which Catholic priests visited Hitler frequently? When Adolf married Eva (a nudist, incidentally, like most devout Catholix), after living together, was it a Cath or Prod ceremony? When Adolf committed incest with his niece (who killed herself), did he marry her in church first?

As for the gent who asked who cares about HG Wells's political opinions, he played a significant role in British politics. Read for instance Orwell's fascinating essay "Hitler, Wells, and the World State".

I look forward to the usual abuse.

Peter Oloffson said it best when he wrote:

"the validity of a scientific theory does not hinge upon how it has been interpreted by German dictators."

If someone says one thing in public but another thing in private to his confidants then it is with good reason that one would prefer the latter, provided it is from a reputable source.

Sorry, it's not that simple. First, as you well know, the reliability of the source in this case is what's in question. Second, when the "someone" in question is Adolph Hitler, whose dishonesty and insanity are so well known to so many people, we really can't tell for sure what he really believed, or whether he had any opinion one way or the other, whether he had any grasp of reality at all, or who he would choose to trust with his "true feelings."

Furthermore, the question of whether Hitler was or was not a "true Christian" is a bit less significant than the question of why so many Christians in the overwhelmingly Christian nation of Germany supported Hitler. Did they really believe Hitler was doing God's work? Was their doctrine not sufficient to deliver them from all the temptations the Nazis offered?

Dan,

The Templeton Foundation didn't fund the World Science Festival's panel discussion on Science, Faith and Religion. Instead, I believe it was aimed primarily at the sessions pertaining to physics (I have this information from a most reliable source, but since this was probbaly confidential, I can't disclose who told me.).

As for the University of Chicago, its financial support from the Templeton Foundation is apparently in the tens of millions of dollars (I strongly doubt that Coyne would have received any funding directly - or indirectly - from them, since the Templeton Foundation is more interested in funding research that addresses the "Big Questions" that pertain more to Cosmology. Funding research on patterns and processes in the speciation of Drosophila - which is Coyne's research interest - wouldn't be of sufficient importance to Templeton.).

Anyway, the point I made is still valid. It is ridiculous for Coyne to reject so openly an invitation from the World Science Foundation to appear on a session panel discussion because he thought the Templeton Foundation was funding either that very session or a large portion of the event (or both), when his university is receiving tens of millions of dollars in support from this very foundation. He could have, like his friend physicist Lawrence Krauss - who participated in several sessions and replaced Coyne on this session - have made a public statement during the session expressing both his displeasure at the WSF for receiving Templeton Foundation funding and the very rationale for having a World Science Festival panel on science, faith and religion.

Coyne's rejection of the World Science Festival's invitation is regrettably, similar to his criticism of Eugenie Scott and the National Center for Science Education for adopting an "accomodationist" stance towards religion. In both instances he began by praising individuals (In the WSF's case, physicist Brian Greene and his wife, journalist Tracy Day, the WSF's co-founders; in NCSE's case, Eugenie Scott) and their organizations, and then, almost immediately, attacked these organizations for their "accomodationist" stances towards religion.

As a matter of interest, who were the other Nazis who were Christians?

Troll: As for the gent who asked who cares about HG Wells’s political opinions, he played a significant role in British politics.

Raging Bee said: Furthermore, the question of whether Hitler was or was not a "true Christian" is a bit less significant than the question of why so many Christians in the overwhelmingly Christian nation of Germany supported Hitler. Did they really believe Hitler was doing God's work? Was their doctrine not sufficient to deliver them from all the temptations the Nazis offered?

This is why I prefer not to allow comments on my posts. I have had to spend more than an hour weeding through the comments to delete non-substantive, pointless insults that do nothing but cause offense and disruption.