Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Monday, March 29, 2010

Connecting Darwin and Hitler


I believe it was "Froggie" who posited something about a Hitler-Darwin connection (or lack thereof) which reminded me of one of several articles that I have been meaning to post on. The article that I will quote from extensively is one by Dr David Berlinski entitled "Connecting Darwin and Hitler" which first appeared in on the news website HumanEvents.com. Dr Berlinsky wrote...

"Published in 1859, Darwin’s On the Origin of Species said nothing of substance about the origin of species. Or anything else, for that matter. It nonetheless persuaded scientists in England, Germany and the United States that human beings were accidents of creation. Where Darwin had seen species struggling for survival, German physicians, biologists, and professors of hygiene saw races. They drew the obvious conclusion, the one that Darwin had already drawn. In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals. German scientists took the word expense to mean what it meant: The annihilation of less fit races. The point is made with abysmal clarity in the documentary, Expelled. Visiting the site at which those judged defective were killed -- a hospital, of course -- the narrator, Ben Stein, asks the curator what most influenced the doctors doing the killing. “Darwinism,” she replies wanly."

Small wonder she would reply "Darwinism". As Berlinski states later on in the article "Where, one might ask, had Hitler heard those ideas before? We may strike the Gospels from possible answers to this question." Also telling in relation to the link between Nazi leaders and Darwinian theory was the following...

"At Hitler’s death in May of 1945, the point was clear enough to the editorial writers of the New York Times. “Long before he had dreamed of achieving power,” they wrote, [Hitler] had developed the principles that nations were destined to hate, oppose and destroy one another; [and] that the law of history was the struggle for survival between peoples …" (NOTE: The entire obituary of Adolf Hitler that appeared in the New York Times on May 2nd, 1945 has been reproduced here in case anyone is interested.)


Again, this hardly resembles anything from the four Gospels. One objection that is commonly raised goes something like this. Hitler was the leader of Germany . Martin Luther was German and produced writings that were highly critical of Jews. Thus, Hitler learned such behavior from Martin Luther. Berlinsky goes on to address this argument thusly...

"Anti-Semitic violence against Jews,” the authors write with a pleased sense of discovery, “can be traced as far back as the middle ages, at least 7 centuries before Darwin.” Let me impart a secret. It can be traced even further. “Oh that mine head were waters and mine eyes a fountain of tears," runs the lamentation in Jeremiah 9.1, “that I might weep day and night for the slain daughters of my people.” And yet if anti-Semitism has been the white noise of European history, to assign it causal powers over the Holocaust is simply to ignore very specific ideas that emerged in the 19th century, and that at once seized the imagination of scientists throughout the world.

What is often called social Darwinism was a malignant force in Germany, England and the United States from the moment that social thinkers forged the obvious connection between what Darwin said and what his ideas implied. Justifying involuntary sterilization, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes argued that “three generations of imbeciles is enough.” He was not, it is understood, appealing to Lutheran ideas. Germany reached a moral abyss before any other state quite understood that the abyss was there to be reached because Germans have always had a congenital weakness for abysses and seem unwilling, when one is in sight, to avoid toppling into it."


In the interests of full disclosure, Berlinski is the son of Holocaust survivors so I think he knows a thing or two concerning what he is talking about.

Jonathan Sarfati, reviewing the book The Darwinian Roots of the Nazi Tree, give us this example of the mindset of the National Socialistsfrom 1937 Germany. A brief excerpt from the transcript of the film Opfer der Vergangenheit, (or "Victims of the Past") reveals the following...


...a disfigured handicapped person [is shown] and [thus] declared ‘Everything in the natural world that is weak for life will ineluctably [unavoidably] be destroyed. In the last few decades, mankind has sinned terribly against the law of natural selection. We haven’t just maintained life unworthy of life, we have even allowed it to multiply! The descendants of these sick people look like this!’

In this era of sex-selective abortions and aborting a child because of reasons like a misshapen foot (Link) I can't help but wonder if we arent on some slippery type of slope. That we're on a downward trend, leading toward something from history that we once swore we would never repeat.






39 comments:

ATVLC said...

A few quick points:
-Mein Kampft never mentions Darwin but often mention Jesus and the Christian god.
-Hitler said it was a Christian preacher Karl Lueger that taught him anti-semitism.
-Hitler's government banned Darwin's books.

tinkbell13 said...

And the irrational nonsense continues... It is very clear that you have absolutely no knowledge of three things. 1. What the Origin of Species actually is. 2. What Social Darwinisim actually is. 3. What Eugenics actually is. I really do wonder if you believe what you write. This is insane.

JD Curtis said...

Mein Kampft never mentions Darwin but often mention Jesus and the Christian god

Upon becoming Reichkanzler, Hitler insisted..

A. Only clergymen were allowed to teach religious classes, and those clergymen were forced to teach according to the anti-Christian instructions of the Nazi Ministry of Education.

B. Christian prayers were banned from the public classroom and crucifixes were physically removed as well

C. Children were prohibited " from belonging simultaneously to a church youth group and the Hitler Youth, and gradually membership in the Hitler Youth became almost obligatory – parents were told that their children would not get jobs in the civil service unless they belonged to the Hitler Youth and employers were told not to hire children who did not belong to the Hitler Youth."

D. “German blood and Christian baptismal water are completely incompatible.” Hitler Youth oath.

E. Quotations out of Hitler Youth training manuals: “Christianity is a religion of slaves and fools.” “How did Christ die? Whining at the Cross!” “The Ten Commandments represent the lowest instincts of man.” and “Christianity is merely a cloak for Judaism.”

F. The Nazi tract Gott und Volk was distributed in 1941, and it describes the life cycle of German youth in the future, who would: “With parties and gifts the youth will be led painlessly from one faith to the other and will grow up without ever having heard of the Sermon on the Mount or the Golden Rule, to say nothing of the Ten Commandments… The education of the youth is to be confined primarily by the teacher, the officer, and the leaders of the party. The priests will die out. They have estranged the youth from the Volk. Into their places will step the leaders. Not deputies of God. But anyway the best Germans. And how shall we train our children? Thus, as though they had never heard of Christianity!”

Link

Hitler said it was a Christian preacher Karl Lueger that taught him anti-semitism

And childhood friend August Kubizek stated that Hitler was an anti-Semite as a youngster, before he even left Linz. Other sources have him as an anti-Semite in 1909 Austria.

Hitler's government banned Darwin's books

If they actually were, I think I know why. Berlinski had this to say in the article...

"It is perfectly true that prominent Nazis were hardly systematic thinkers. They said whatever came into their heads and since their heads were empty, ideas tended to ricochet. Heinrich Himmler proclaimed himself offended by the idea that he might been descended from the apes.

If Himmler was offended, the apes were appalled."

JD Curtis said...

Tink, thesaurus.com defines "Social Darwinism" as "social theories derived from evolution".

Some synonyms that they provide are "law of the jungle" and "survival of the fittest". Might you disagree? If so, how do you define it and what source would you cite?

SmartLX said...

So why did the Nazi Party ban Darwin's works and anything else concerning them, denouncing them as false in the process?

JD Curtis said...

Wait, why can't I see my earlier comments?

ATVLC said...

Your 3:51 comment has almost no sources to actually check but I found (the majority of) "Gott und Volk" and it doesn't say that at all. I can't cut and paste from the PDF but there is some stuff about how evil the Jews are for rejecting Christ.
...And these sites you link to are pure crazy nonsense. I can't sugarcoat it anymore. Have you any idea what a credible source is?

It's really not worth the effort so here's some cut and paste.
The Nazi Party in general rejected Darwinism and supported Christianity. In 1935, Die Bücherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published a list of guidelines of works to reject, including:
Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel). (Die Bücherei 1935, 279)
On the other hand, an undated "Blacklist for Public Libraries and Commercial Lending Libraries" includes the following on a list of literature which "absolutely must be removed":
c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk. (Blacklist n.d.
)

SmartLX said...

We couldn't see them either, JD, but they're there now.

tinkbell13 said...

JD-Here is a suggestion. Look beyond thesaurus.com. Read something for a change.

Here is a little piece of an essay that I wrote about this. No doubt you will brush it aside, and I am totally wasting my time posting this. But, I am stupid like that. I keep hoping that you might actually learn something. Here it is;

The evolutionary theory explored by Charles Darwin and Social Darwinism and Eugenics are two completely different ideas. The Origin of Species was written in 1859. The idea was then applied to humans (which Darwin never intended). Darwin, likely having realized the problems—scientific and social—arising from the study of natural selection in humans, remained decidedly focused on plants and animals, at least publicly. But his cousin Francis Galton, who by the 1860s was an established explorer and anthropologist, found the question of natural selection in humans an irresistible topic of study. So too did British philosopher Herbert Spencer, who coined the phrase “survival of the fittest” just five years after Darwin’s publication.

Galton introduced his own controversial idea—the theory of eugenics—in 1883. At the time, Galton was probably thinking simply in terms of science, using his theory to describe selective breeding in humans as a means to improve the fitness of the human race. However, when his theory was united with Spencer’s socially inclined concept of survival, the result was social Darwinism, a gripping theory about competition for survival among human races and social classes. 

During Galton’s era—the Victorian Age in Britain—eugenics and social Darwinism seemed reasonable. Many negative reactions to Darwinism come from the confusion of Darwinism as a scientific theory with Social Darwinism as an ethical theory. In reality, the two have very little in common, aside from their name and a few basic concepts, which Social Darwinists misapplied. Unfortunately, much of today's opposition to the application of Darwinian thinking to human behavior comes from a fear of Social Darwinism and its implications for many of today's moral codes. However, Social Darwinism in its basic (and extremist) forms are based on a logical fallacy, and do not really follow from Darwinian thinking in any way.

tinkbell13 said...

The point- Darwin's cousin was responsible for applying his theory to humans. Charles Darwin was a botanist, and created a scientific theory based on his observations of plant life. You have done what most typical, uninformed people do; assumed and appropriated rhetorical nonsense without actually looking at it. You are so far off, it is insane. Please, read something. Look at each of these categories and attempt to understand their distinctions. Social Darwinism, Natural Selection (as proposed by Darwin, and Eugenics are very distinct ideas from two completely different academic disciplines. PICK UP A BOOK FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!! Read before you write.

SmartLX said...

Looks like the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing when it came to Christianity OR Darwinism.

If you're saying social Darwinism caused trouble when applied by Nazis, I'm okay with that. Social Darwinism is the wrong end of an is-ought fallacy - the idea that because Darwinian natural selection is what happens in nature, it's also how we ought to be behaving. It's a religious kind of thinking, where one assumes that one's origin story and one's guide to living are the same text. Evolutionary biologists such as Dawkins have no truck with it.

As they were applied by the Nazis in the form of eugenics, genocide, racial purity, etc. Darwinist platitudes like "survival of the fittest" were immediately and irreparably separated from Darwin's theory in a very basic way: the Nazis practiced forms of artificial selection. The whole point of Darwinism is that you don't need to do that for change and progress to occur.

It was really just the Darwinist language being applied by selected figures, not the theory, because they weren't doing anything which hadn't been tried and tested by farmers and breeders for centuries before Darwin. They were building a strong stock of a pure breed and culling undesirables.

JD Curtis said...

The Origin of Species was written in 1859. The idea was then applied to humans (which Darwin never intended).

Now I'm confused, wasnt the original title of On the Origin of Species actually..
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life?

tinkbell13 said...

No, once again. Had absolutely nothing, and I mean no connection whatsoever to humans at all. The book is called;

The Origin of Species.

I know that you are really trying to umbrella and relate all things to being Nazi, but you are dead wrong. I would say that the Nazi application of Eugenics is accurate, which was an extreme form of Social Darwinism, which was loosely inspired by Darwinian natural selection some 25 years later- okay.

Froggie said...

Martin Luther did more to inspire the holocust than Darwin ever did.
Did evolution factor in guiding Nazi thought? No. First of all, as has already been established courtesy of searching through Mein Kampf in detail, Hitler's assorted eructations on nature reproduce well-known creationist canards, including the static species fallacy, and Hitler also asserted that fertile, viable hybrids were inpossible, which is manifestly refuted by this scientific paper (among many others):
Speciation By Hybridisation In Heliconius Butterflies, by Jesús Mavárez, Camilo A. Salazar, Eldredge Bermingham, Christian Salcedo, Chris D. Jiggins and Mauricio Linares, Nature, 441: 868-871 (15th June 2006)
Also, even an elementary search of Mein Kampf reveals the following statistics. The number of instances of key words are as follows:
"Darwin" : ZERO
"Almighty" : 6
"God" : 37
"Creator" : 8
Hitler was inspired by the anti-Semitic ravings of one Lanz von Liebenfels, who was a defrocked monk, and whose magnum opus bore the Pythonesque title of Theozoology, Or The Account Of The Sodomite Apelings And The Divine Electron. This was in effect a warped Biblical exegesis, which rewrites the Crucifixion story, and also contains a mediaeval bestiary replete with instances of Liebenfels' florid imagination.
Additionally, the Nazis placed textbooks on evolutionary biology on their list of seditious books to be burned, as illustrated nicely here, where we learn that in 1935, Nazi guidelines with respect to seditious books included:
6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklärung eines primitiven Darwinismus und Monismus ist (Häckel).
Translated into English, this reads:
Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)
The evidence is therefore conclusive. Nazism was not inspired by evolution, and indeed, much of Hitler's own writings are creationist in tone. The Nazis destroyed evolutionary textbooks as seditious (much as modern day creationists would love to), and the Nazi view of the biosphere is wholly at variance with genuine evolutionary theory, involving fatuous views of race "purification" by the establishment of monocultures that are the very antithesis of genuine evolutionary thought, which relies upon genetic diversity.

Chris B said...

Natural Selection describes how the world works. It doesn't tell us how the world, or human society, or individual human behavior should operate. It's an observation that, in an environment with limited resources, the species who are most adapted to their environment will thrive. That isn't the same as saying that we should go out into the world and intervene in nature to make sure that what we perceive as the most fit individuals survive and prosper.

For a person (or committee, or political party, or whatever) to choose which individuals are fit and which are not is NOT Natural Selection, any more than a Planned Economy is a Free Market. It is the very opposite.

Also, Natural Selection and Evolution operate on a species level; to apply it to individuals is a complete misapplication of the principle.


The notion that "Darwinism" demands the horrors of Eugenics or Social Darwinism is based on a misunderstanding of what Darwinian Evolution is, and what it states. People who used evolution as an excuse for genocide were Wrong. People who blame evolutionary theory for genocide today are Wrong.

tinkbell13 said...

Stone cold dead wrong. I love this gem-

In the interests of full disclosure, Berlinski is the son of Holocaust survivors so I think he knows a thing or two concerning what he is talking about.

Really? Sounds to me like he is counting on the fact that people do not know the facts.

JD Curtis said...

I think that Vox Day (quoting no less a source than Richard Dawkins for crying out loud) Sums up the beliefs of Adolf Hitler about as good as anybody who has ever written on the subject.

"Dawkins...demonstrates that he is perfectly capable of presenting a reasonable case when he chooses to do so and lays out some reasonable evidence for the reader to reach his own conclusion on the matter. He avoids making the common case for Hitler’s religious faith on the basis of his...childhood [having been raised as a Catholic], wisely, considering that one could apply precisely the same argument to Christopher Hitchens and Dawkins himself. Instead, after quoting Hitler’s public statements that state outright that he is a Christian, and a very devout one at that, Dawkins quotes private statements that reveal a deep hatred for Christianity surpassing that possessed by even the most militant New Atheist.

It is possible that Hitler had by 1941 experienced some kind of deconversion or disillusionment with Christianity. Or is the resolution of the contradictions simply that he was an opportunistic liar whose words cannot be trusted, in either direction? Dawkins, Richard; The God Delusion, page 276.

It is worth noting that most of the statements that indicate Hitler’s Christian faith were made in public, prior to 1934, when he was still a politician running for elected office. Given his subsequent actions once he had secured political power, there is no reason to believe
that Hitler meant them any more sincerely than George W. Bush intended to keep his promise to pursue a “more humble foreign policy” three years before he launched an invasion to bring democracy and freedom to the Middle East. But Hitler was no atheist, neither was he agnostic; the evidence tends to suggest that he was a pagan who was skeptical, but open to the possibility of acquiring temporal power through supernatural means."

Day, Vox; The Irrational Atheist pgs 210-211

Another interesting footnote brought up by Day in that particular chapter states that in reference to self-proclaimed Buddhist sam Harris, "I further note that the Buddhist Harris neglects to mention the fact that Professor Walter Wüst, who commanded the SS-Ahnenerbe under Himmler after February 1937, publicly declared that Hitler’s ideologies corresponded with those of the Gautama Buddha."

photogr said...

It was interesting to see the great Arian NAZI nation of the 40's evolve into a Neo Nazi (skinheads) cult today. Can we call it a reverse evolution principle?

SmartLX said...

There is no reverse evolution. Evolution may revive qualities which become useful after a long period of uselessness, but the genes do not simply regress. They develop the qualities anew.

SmartLX said...

On whether Darwin intended to apply his theory to humans: of course he did, or he wouldn't have gone on to write The Descent of Man. However, again, he argued that natural selection is the explanation for man's development into his present form, not that people ought to behave in a certain way because of this.

JD Curtis said...

Thank you for commentary LX. The way you put it, it almost seems like Nazis actually hijacked a parody of Darwin's evolutionary theory to advance their causes.

SmartLX said...

Perhaps, JD. Social Darwinism isn't so much a parody as an over-extension of the Darwinian concept, like trying to describe your staff in terms of molecules in a bowl of soup because it sounds cool in a board meeting.

It seems to me that some Nazis simply rejoiced in the wealth of new Darwinian terminology which could be applied obliquely to age-old concepts of ethnic cleansing.

ATVLC said...

Artificial selection is not natural selection.

tinkbell13 said...

Completely untrue Smart Lx.... When Darwin can avoid going into detail about the human side of evolution, he does so. When he cannot avoid it, (even though his analysis may be prejudicial towards certain races) he speaks of it in the most factual terms possible. As far as the public world is concerned, Darwin is simply a scientist out to report his findings in a scholarly manner. Charles Darwin's views on Social Darwinism are not truly relevant to his work, and so he simply omits them. Never mind the fact that Social Darwinism did not even exist until 25 years later.

JD- I know that you really really want to believe it, but you are stone dead wrong. The Nazi's form of eugenics is completely unrelated to Charles Darwin. It is very clear that you do not make any distinction. I have a suggestion- perhaps before you try to argue whether the Nazi's are associated with the Origin of Species- READ IT first.

SmartLX said...

Tink, how the hell did Darwin avoid going into detail about the human side of evolution in a book called The Descent Of Man?

Tristan D. Vick said...

Just to point out, as has been done prior, "Social Darwinism" is not the same thing as the scientific "Theory of Evolution" any more so than the band Peter, Paul, and Mary represent the Gospel characters. There's no connect other than the name and perhaps a few borrowed themes.

Social Darwinism is a belief.

Darwin's theory of evolution is a tested science.

Social Darwinism is actually predicated on ideas which predate Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species.

Namely, it was based on the theories of Herbert Spencer, the 18th century clergyman Thomas Malthus, and Darwin's cousin Francis Galton who founded the concept of eugenics.

The Nazi party actually missuses the concept of eugenics. According to Galton, eugenics was meant only as gradual process of increasing the overall good and health of the nation, creating the fittest via regimented programs of selective breeding and dietary schemes so that they would be healthier therefore produce healthier offspring and continue the gradual cycle therefore increasing the survival of the fittest to its maximum potential.

It was not, however, intended to be a prejudiced genetics genocide and an informed policy of survival of the fittest "gene pool" specimens only. This is a Nazi perversion of the overall ideology.

In fact, Social Darwinists advocated sympathy for those that were not "fit" and could not benefit toward social change, but they did not suggest eradicating them simply for the sake of increasing potential good. Hitler's lack of sympathy however lead him toward all kinds of cruelties. Leading, ultimately, to no good at all.

Social Darwinism and eugenics were relatively sound theories in their day, but it's outdated as it's pre-genomics. Breeding will play a minimal role in the future where we will probably see gene splicing, grafting, re-sequencing all to artificially enhance humans so ALL deficiencies in our genetic code will be erased and re-written with better code making everyone fit. I predict there will be no need for sympathy when people can be genetically "fixed-up" or "tuned-up." Although such a reality is still a ways off.

Just my two cents.

Froggie said...

Darwin's discovery and description of evolution is no different than Alfred Nobel's discovery and description of dynamite.
Did the Nazi's use dynamite? Yes.
Does that make Nobel an evil person? No.
Is dynamitism and evil philosopy? No.

Scientists will continue to discover natural processes and some of them will be used for evil.

tinkbell13 said...

Thank you Tristan. I had already pointed that out, but it was so easily overlooked. Which is why I questioned even posting it. Because, at the end of the day, there really is no point. And, that has been demonstrated time and time again.

At Smart LX... On the one hand, you are right. Yes, the Descent of Man is about humans. However, it is not social Darwinism. There is a difference. It is a scientific discussion of humans as animals, as well as mammals, plants, etc. It is a primal look at animal anatomy, genetics, population characteristics, etc. Albeit, a little racist. But, it is not what Social Darwinism became, nor is it what Eugenics became either. Social Darwinism is a Victorian "ethical" theory The concept of adaptation allowed them to claim that the rich and powerful were better adapted to the social and economic climate of the time, and the concept of natural selection allowed them to argue that it was natural, normal, and proper for the strong to thrive at the expense of the weak. They contrasted this with natural trends in animals. Here is a great quote;

"Many negative reactions to Darwinism come from the confusion of Darwinism as a scientific theory with Social Darwinism as an ethical theory. In reality, the two have very little in common, aside from their name and a few basic concepts, which Social Darwinists misapplied. Unfortunately, much of today's opposition to the application of Darwinian thinking to human behavior comes from a fear of Social Darwinism and its implications for many of today's moral codes. However, Social Darwinism in its basic (and extremist) forms are based on a logical fallacy, and do not really follow from Darwinian thinking in any way"

Apples and oranges, really. Which will never get through to JD.

SmartLX said...

Actually Tink, I think JD has got the picture. Juxtaposing the two main issues here shows pretty clearly that the Nazis corrupted everything they touched, from Christianity to Darwinism, and twisted it for their own publicity purposes. (The Catholic Church at the time could have spoken against this more, but still.) Most Nazis didn't accept that men are descended from apes any more than they sincerely believed the genocides were God's work. That didn't stop them from using whatever related language was useful when speaking to their own people.

And we're in agreement over social Darwinism, you and me. When Darwin talked about humans, he talked about their biological development, not their current obligations to each other. The social element was other people's idea.

tinkbell13 said...

Yes, we are in agreement. Only the insane notions of the Victorians could twist and create such an absurd idea. However, on this topic, I disagree. JD does not get it. I do not believe that he will make the distinction, or even acknowledge that these are two different ideas. I think that he really does not set out to learn about the world, he just twists the world into a shape that he can handle. This posting is a classic example. All that he had to do was simple research, which he clearly did not.

JD Curtis said...

It's no secret that I admire Jonah Goldberg's writing style and he had this to say about Hitler which I think pretty much sum him up...

"...no psyche in human history has been so thoroughly mined for various explanatory pathologies, and few subjects have offered a richer lode. "The search for Hitler", writes Ron Rosenbaum in Explaining Hitler, "has apprehended not one coherent, consensus image of Hitler but rather many different Hitlers, competeing Hitlers, conflicting embodiements of competeing visions." Psychologists and historians have argued that Hitler's personalities stem from the fact(s) that he was abused by his father, had a history of incest in his family, was a sadomaschist, a coprophiliac, a homosexual, or was part Jewish (or feared that he was)." These theories vary in plausibility. But what is certain is that Hitler's megalomania was the product of a rich complex of psychological maladies and impulses. Taken as a whole, they point to a man who felt he had much to compensate for and whose egocentrisms knew no bounds. "I have to attain immortality," Hitler once confessed, "even if the whole German nation perishes in the process."

Goldberg, Jonah: Liberal Fascism, Chapter 2, Adolf Hitler, Man of the Left, 2007, Doubleday.

tinkbell13 said...

But, the true punchline, and the JD type of craziness comes in the final paragraph of this posting. That unChristian practices are the slippery slope toward repeating history. That agendas that Christians do not support is the surest way to inciting that National Socialism of the past. This, Smart LX, is where he will NEVER get it.

JD Curtis said...

Whatever Tink.

Anyway, I wanted to post this earlier when you were discussing the matter with LX. I came across this the other day in reference to the origiunal title of Darwin'sOn the Origin of Species....

"He was a product of his time, and made mistakes like everyone else...... Before Darwin and since, there have been a number of "scientific" studies justifying the inherent superiority of one race or or group over another. Since, without exception, the scientists conducting these studies all just happened to belong to the group which proved to be superior, these kinds of claims are no longer taken seriously by any real scientist.

As for the title: Any publisher will tell you that a snappier title sells more...." (From yahoo answers)

Your thoughts please...

ATVLC said...

Like how religions with "chosen people" or "favored races" are always revealed to those people or races?

tinkbell13 said...

Like I said, you did not get it, you will not get it, and I wasted my time. You search your evangelical "Google" and you will find whatever slanted piece of crap propaganda to suit what is lurking in your brain, and you continue to choose (most important word here) to the cold hard facts.

My thoughts.

JD Curtis said...

Well, I ommitted the part where the commenter I cited was quite critical of religious people. Only because I wanted your opinion on the more pertinent part in relation to the topic/above article.

Oh well, it was worth a try.

tinkbell13 said...

Why would I comment on something when it is very clear that almost everything I said went completely over my head? Just the fact that you posted that comment clearly indicates this. Have a good day.

JD Curtis said...

Why would I comment on something when it is very clear that almost everything I said went completely over my head?

Is this a moment of startling honesty or failure to proof read?

tinkbell13 said...

Once again JD- You provide a childish argument that is based on a completely unrealistic fallacy.We have shown you that you are wrong, in many different ways. Some of us went so far as to suggest how you might want to start even looking at this if you were to reframe- all of which you easily ignored because it may mean that it could not be used in the way that you want. So, you ignore everything, and continue to wish the same argument. And, you even used a different source that you suspected may be more appealing as bait to argue. Not going to happen.

This is the same pattern that you repeat over and over again, which brings me to my original position. There is no point with you. You never learn anything. You really want to live in a world where the left is fascist, any movement that does not promote a Christian agenda will help us to repeat the National Socialists of the past, Christians invented hospitals, schools, never practiced genocide, and they are the true reason that the West is civilized. And that is where you stay.

I do not live like this. I enjoy the facts, learning, and trying to understand why things are the way they are, regardless of my personal beliefs. So, I will not argue this bullshit, flawed, and absurd argument with you until you even make the slightest attempt to actually find out some facts of what you say. That is why it will never happen.