the Racist Roots of Evolution.
American Patriot
Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
the book itself:
"At some future period (Darwin writes), 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 the baboon, instead of as
now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
178).
So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
Nosiree. Strictly science.
Terry
--
'Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the
glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible
man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things'
Saint Paul
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Boikat
>
> I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
> Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
> Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
> the book itself:
>
> "At some future period (Darwin writes), 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 the baboon, instead of as
> now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
> The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
> 178).
>
> So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
> between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
> Nosiree. Strictly science.
That must be why the KKK caries a burning torch in
one hand, and "The Descent of Man" in the other.
No wait. That's not "The Descent of Man", it's
the Bible.
Boikat
Mapi32
~Matthias
Larry Handlin
wrote:
And your position on the US Constitution is that we should throw it
out...
>I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
>Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
>Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
>the book itself:
>
>"At some future period (Darwin writes), 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 the baboon, instead of as
>now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
>The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
>178).
>
>So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
>between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
>Nosiree. Strictly science.
>
Reply to lbha...@my-deja.com
"The rest of the world is standing on the brink
of a new millennium, and Kansas has voted itself
back into the Stone Age."
---Robert Park
"They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton.
But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
-- Carl Sagan
Dave Oldridge
<8co42i$57j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
>Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
>Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
>the book itself:
>
>"At some future period (Darwin writes), 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 the baboon, instead of as
>now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
>The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
>178).
>
>So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
>between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
>Nosiree. Strictly science.
The fact that Darwin may have shared some of the racist views of his
contemporaries does not change the scientific evaluation of evidence
presently in hand. This whole argument is a false appeal to emotional biases
and has actually been made from both sides (depending what the arguer thinks
the bias of his hearers is).
Hitler claimed alternately to be Christian and Darwinist. Neither claim made
his hollow earth theories any more or less scientific.
Jesse Fahl
news:38EF9710...@bellsouth.net...
> American Patriot wrote:
> >
> > I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
> > Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
> > Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
> > the book itself:
> >
> > "At some future period (Darwin writes), 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 the baboon, instead of as
> > now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
> > The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
> > 178).
> >
> > So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
> > between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
> > Nosiree. Strictly science.
>
> one hand, and "The Descent of Man" in the other.
> No wait. That's not "The Descent of Man", it's
> the Bible.
And this has any relevance whatsoever because.........?
Boikat
>
> That wasn't a very good answer, in my opinion.
Noted. But then again, Trainers interpretation
(Or rather, someone else's interpretation, which
Trainer fell for) of what Darwin was saying wasn't
a very good argument to support his assertion to
begin with. If he had actually read "The Descent
of Man", rather than just barfing up quoted
material out of context, he'd know better.
Also, the purpose of my response was to show that
*anything* can be warped to support racism.
Science, religion, fairy tales. You name it, it
can be warped. Including the Bible. Or do you
deny that the KKK bases a lot of their philosophy
on their interpretation of the Bible?
Boikat
>
> ~Matthias
>
> > That must be why the KKK caries a burning torch in
> > one hand, and "The Descent of Man" in the other.
> > No wait. That's not "The Descent of Man", it's
> > the Bible.
> >
> > Boikat
Micheal Keane
>I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
>Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
>Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
>the book itself:
The quote's from a completely different book moron.
>So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
>between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
>Nosiree. Strictly science.
Darwin was as racist as anyone else in that era. Or the racist roots of
American democracy because the founding fathers owned slaves?
It has nothing to do with evolution or democracy today
Micheal Keane
<8F1097009a...@207.217.77.24>:
>Darwin was as racist as anyone else in that era. Or the racist roots of
>American democracy because the founding fathers owned slaves?
That should read "Or what about the racists roots of American democracy..."
Mapi32
saying you could have come up with a better reply, such as showing how the
text was taken out of context.
~Matthias
"Boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:38EF9EB7...@bellsouth.net...
Schalk
Admittedly I don't know many other atheists, but they are all as liberal you
can find.
Even stranger how most of the racist killings have happened for religious
reasons. The crusades could arguably be called the greatest racist killing
spree in history (you "American Patriots" still seem to have problems
grasping the idea that Arab is not synonym for target...).
But back to the point. Darwin was a man of his time and we can't really
blame him for the prejudices of his society. If nothing else we should thank
him for putting the process in motion that now allows us to say with
confidence that racism has no scientific basis.
"American Patriot" <ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8co42i$57j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
> Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
> Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
> the book itself:
>
> "At some future period (Darwin writes), 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 the baboon, instead of as
> now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
> The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
> 178).
>
> So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
> between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
> Nosiree. Strictly science.
>
maff91
>"Boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:38EF9710...@bellsouth.net...
>> American Patriot wrote:
>> >
>> > I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
>> > Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
>> > Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
>> > the book itself:
>> >
>> > "At some future period (Darwin writes), 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 the baboon, instead of as
>> > now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
>> > The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
>> > 178).
>> >
>> > So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
>> > between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
>> > Nosiree. Strictly science.
>>
>> That must be why the KKK caries a burning torch in
>> one hand, and "The Descent of Man" in the other.
>> No wait. That's not "The Descent of Man", it's
>> the Bible.
>
>And this has any relevance whatsoever because.........?
"My correspondent thinks with Mr. Jefferson, that Jehovah has no
attributes that will harmonize with slavery; and that all men are born
free and equal. Now, I say let him throw away his Bible as Mr.
Jefferson did his and then they will be fit companions. But never
disgrace the Bible by making Mr. Jefferson its expounder, nor
Mr. Jefferson by deriving his sentiments from it. Mr. Jefferson did
not bow to the authority of the Bible, and on this subject I do not
bow to him."
[Rev. Thornton Stringfellow, D.D., in "Scriptural View of Slavery," a
work showing that the Bible sanctions slavery, from John E. Remsburg,
"Six Historic Americans. Chapter 2: Thomas Jefferson"]
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_2.html
"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy
Scriptures, both by precept and example."
[Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina]
"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many
regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral."
[Rev. Alexander Campbell]
"The extracts from Holy Writ unequivocally assert the right of
property in slaves."
[Rev. E.D. Simms, professor, Randolph-Macon College]
"I draw my warrant from the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments
to hold the slave in bondage."
[Rev. Thomas Witherspoon, Presbyterian, of Alabama]
"In another area of human rights, many Christian clergymen advocated
slavery. Historian Larry Hise notes in his book 'Pro-Slavery' that
ministers 'wrote almost half of all defenses of slavery published in
America.' He lists 275 men of the cloth who used the Bible to prove
that white people were entitled to own black people as work animals."
[James A. Haught, 'Holy Horrors']
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879755784/
"The delegates of the annual conference are decidedly opposed to
modern abolitionism, and wholly disclaim any right, wish, or intention
to interfere in the civil and political relation between master and
slave in the slave-holding states of the union."
[Methodist Episcopal Church, Statement of the General Conference,
Cincinnati, May 1836]
Slavery, segregation and the Bible
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=439145525
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=540448767
http://www.dovelink.com/News/archives/Feb1999/Feb161999.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav.htm
http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/History/U_S__History/Slavery/
http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/History/By_Subject/Slavery/Atlantic_Slave_Trade/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Slavery/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Segregation/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Lynching/
--
Voices for evolution
http://www.natcenscied.org/voicont.htm
Mapi32
;-)
~Matthias
"Schalk" <scha...@hotmail.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:38efb...@news1.mweb.co.za...
> Strange how all the racists I know are also Christians or Moslems.
> Admittedly I don't know many other atheists, but they are all as liberal
you
> can find.
>
> Even stranger how most of the racist killings have happened for religious
> reasons. The crusades could arguably be called the greatest racist
killing
> spree in history (you "American Patriots" still seem to have problems
> grasping the idea that Arab is not synonym for target...).
>
> But back to the point. Darwin was a man of his time and we can't really
> blame him for the prejudices of his society. If nothing else we should
thank
> him for putting the process in motion that now allows us to say with
> confidence that racism has no scientific basis.
>
>
>
> "American Patriot" <ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8co42i$57j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
> > Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
> > Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
> > the book itself:
> >
> > "At some future period (Darwin writes), 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 the baboon, instead of as
> > now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
> > The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
> > 178).
> >
> > So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
> > between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
> > Nosiree. Strictly science.
> >
ZeldaG
>From: American Patriot ttra...@my-deja.com
>Date: 4/8/2000 1:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8co42i$57j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
>Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
>Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
>the book itself:
>
>"At some future period (Darwin writes), 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 the baboon, instead of as
>now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
>The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
>178).
>
>So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
>between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
>Nosiree. Strictly science.
In Darwin's time, Phrenology was considered serious science and was thought to
validate racism. Therefore, Darwin's statements, while taken as racist today,
were not unreasonable. What is telling is that even though Darwin viewed
"savage" races as somewhat intermediate between Europeans and apes, while
predicting that said races could become extinct, he did not advocate racism or
prescribe a hastening of such "selection". It is all the more remarkable
because he was a very prolific author and had ample opportunity to do so.
Darwins racism has nothing to do with the validity of evolution, except as
serving as a vehicle for Creationist propaganda.
tweedyd
> Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
> Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
> the book itself:
>
> "At some future period (Darwin writes), 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 the baboon, instead of as
> now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
> The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
> 178).
>
> So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
> between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
> Nosiree. Strictly science.
Assuming that this quote is correct, and that it is in fact in context, one
must understand the social context also. Darwin lived and worked in a time
where racism was accepted. The idea that Caucasans were "superior" was
casually assumed by nearly everyone at that time. Darwin's work should not
be expected to meet modern standards of racial equality.
The history of Creationism is by no means exempt from similar thinking
as well. Racism was preached from the pulpit at the time, and the Bible was
used to support the idea. Blacks were supposed to be the descendants of
Ham, and were therefore "cursed" to serve the "superior" races.
Later evolutionary research proved that all human races are biologically
equal. Changing social mores have led to the rejection of the concept of
one race being superior to any other. The concept it still being held onto,
largely by right wing racist movements ( ironically many of them call
themselves "Patriots" ). Many of them use the Bible to support their
racism.
--
Dana J. Tweedy
(animal bipes implume)
Steven J.
Darwinism leads to racism? Then why is Steven J. Gould so
fanatically anti-racist, and why do his fellow darwinists never
criticize him for this alleged deviation from darwinism? Is it
that Darwinism grew out of racism? Then why did darwinism not
arise in the slaveholding American south, rather than in a
family of abolitionists? That Darwin believed in racism, and
therefore darwinism contains racism as a key doctrine?
The first point which must be made is that darwinism is not a
religion, and Darwin's writings are not its sacred scripture.
Modern darwinists reject Darwin's belief in the inheritance of
aquired characteristics. They reject his belief in "blending
inheritance." They reject his confusion of biological and
cultural evolution, implied in the quote you selected. Modern
darwinism consists of those ideas of Darwin which are in accord
with scientific facts, supplemented by additional discoveries.
Secondly, Darwin believed that blacks were less intelligent than
whites. In this he was joined by nearly every white English
speaker alive in his day. Darwinism was first believed by
racists, as was 19th-century creationism, because no one else
was available to believe it. If you want racist beliefs, try to
find Carroll's 1900 book, "The Negro a Beast," a creationist
tract which ranked whites, blacks, and apes as did Darwin, but
put the dividing line between human and beast between whites and
blacks. There was not a prominent creationist in Darwin's time
who could not match Darwin racist quote for racist quote.
Thirdly, darwinism is intrinsically hostile to racism in a way
that creationism is not. Racism is essentialist, i.e. your race
is a defining trait, and you share something important with
every member of your race and with no member of any other race.
Darwinism is antiessentialist -- there is no trait that every
member of a given group has, and every non-member of that group
lacks. Rather, darwinism has as its central tenet the idea that
variation exists among the members of every race, and that the
differences within each race exceed the average difference
between two races. This is what provides the raw material for
natural selection and evolution. This is why Wallace, who
shared Darwin's beliefs about blacks (they were both white
English speakers, after all), said that "the average Negro has
lower intelligence than the average white man." Any ordinary
racist would have just said, "the Negro is less intelligent than
the white man," but Wallace's acceptance of natural selection
from variation within groups forced him to acknowledge that some
blacks HAD to be smarter than the average white man. No
darwinist could, in good conscience, embrace the ideals of Jim
Crow or the Nuremberg laws, which denied individual variation
and treated "races" as unvarying kinds. True, some darwinists,
like some creationists, fail to act in good conscience.
Creationism, on the other hand, is essentialist. Created
"kinds" share some trait which forever separates them from all
other kinds. Something like the "curse of Ham" can create an
essential trait that unites all members of a "cursed" race, and
separates it from all other races. Show a racist darwinist that
science shows that "races" and racial differences don't really
exist, and he will be forced to abandon his racism or his
darwinism. Show this to a racist creationist -- but if you can
deny that humans and apes are a single biological group, you can
deny, in the face of any evidence, that blacks and whites are a
single race. I do not say that creationism is racist, or that
most creationists are racist. I know that most creationists now
quote the line about "God made all nations from one blood" in
support of racial equality. It was not always so, and on purely
creationist grounds, there is no reason why it must be so.
-- Steven J.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
>Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
>Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
>the book itself:
>
>"At some future period (Darwin writes), 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 the baboon, instead of as
>now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
>The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
>178).
you're too late. this is standard nando ronteltop regurgipost.
and darwin was beaten to the punch by creationists who assumed blacks
were descended from noah's son ham. they invented the 'hamitic
hypothesis' which justified slavery, and predicted whites would, at
some point in the future, replace inferior blacks. this hamitic
hypothesis was also partially responsible for the present day genocide
in rwanda in 1994. in africa's most christian country, 800,000 tutsis
were murdered by their christian neighbors. (see peter gourevitch's
national award winning book).
1/2 of all proslavery tracts were written by the christian clergy
(james mcpherson, battle cry of freedom)
so AP is simply ignorant of history.
Boikat
>
> I don't deny many things can be warped or taken out of context...I was just
> saying you could have come up with a better reply, such as showing how the
> text was taken out of context.
That's the thing about out of context quotes.
Someone can quote five lines from something and
make Mother Theresa like like Hitler's hand
maiden, and it takes 50 lines to show how this is
out of context. Same for the quote trainer
posted.
You can research the quote and what Darwin really
felt towards racial prejudices yourself:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/
And if you really, really want to know about his
views on such things as slavery, check out "The
Voyage of the Beagle. Skip towards the end where
he leaves South America.
Boikat
>
> ~Matthias
>
> "Boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:38EF9EB7...@bellsouth.net...
> > Mapi32 wrote:
> > >
> > > That wasn't a very good answer, in my opinion.
> >
> > Noted. But then again, Trainers interpretation
> > (Or rather, someone else's interpretation, which
> > Trainer fell for) of what Darwin was saying wasn't
> > a very good argument to support his assertion to
> > begin with. If he had actually read "The Descent
> > of Man", rather than just barfing up quoted
> > material out of context, he'd know better.
> >
> > Also, the purpose of my response was to show that
> > *anything* can be warped to support racism.
> > Science, religion, fairy tales. You name it, it
> > can be warped. Including the Bible. Or do you
> > deny that the KKK bases a lot of their philosophy
> > on their interpretation of the Bible?
> >
> > Boikat
> >
> > >
> > > ~Matthias
> > >
> > > > That must be why the KKK caries a burning torch in
> > > > one hand, and "The Descent of Man" in the other.
> > > > No wait. That's not "The Descent of Man", it's
> > > > the Bible.
> > > >
> > > > Boikat
> >
Boikat
> > American Patriot wrote:
> > >
> > > I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
> > > Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
> > > Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
> > > the book itself:
> > >
> > > "At some future period (Darwin writes), 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 the baboon, instead of as
> > > now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
> > > The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
> > > 178).
> > >
> > > between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
> > > Nosiree. Strictly science.
> >
> > one hand, and "The Descent of Man" in the other.
> > No wait. That's not "The Descent of Man", it's
> > the Bible.
>
That anything can be warped to support any
position.
Boikat
Pat James
(in message <38efd8b5...@news.ptd.net>):
> you're too late. this is standard nando ronteltop regurgipost.
I thought I recognised the smell.
>
> and darwin was beaten to the punch by creationists who assumed blacks were
> descended from noah's son ham. they invented the 'hamitic hypothesis' which
> justified slavery, and predicted whites would, at some point in the future,
> replace inferior blacks. this hamitic hypothesis was also partially
> responsible for the present day genocide in rwanda in 1994. in africa's most
> christian country, 800,000 tutsis were murdered by their christian
> neighbors. (see peter gourevitch's national award winning book).
>
> 1/2 of all proslavery tracts were written by the christian clergy (james
> mcpherson, battle cry of freedom)
>
> so AP is simply ignorant of history.
Well, he's ignorant of everything else, so why should history be an
exception?
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.
maff91
>How about Jews? You left them out, racist.
"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in
his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially
of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word
be desecrated.
For God's will gave men their form, their essence, and their
abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's
creation, the divine will. Therefore, let every man be active, each in
his own denomination if you please, and let every man take it as his
first and most sacred duty to oppose anyone who in his activity by
word or deed steps outside the confines of his religious community and
tries to butt into the other."
.... 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."
- Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf"
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so..."
- Adolf Hitler
"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded
only 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.
In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the
passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and
seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and
adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison."
Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more
profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had
to shed his blood upon the Cross."
As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I
have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice..."
And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting
rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I
have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see
them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they
have only for their wages wretchedness and misery."
When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their
queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no
Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not,
as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom
today this poor people are plundered and exploited."
- Adolf Hitler, "My New Order"
>
> ;-)
>~Matthias
[...]
*****************************************************
Unforgettable Thomas Paine:
"Society in every state is a blessing, but
government, even in its best state, is but a
necessary evil, in its worst state
an intolerable one."
"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind,
tyranny in religion is the Worst"
"All national institutions of churches, whether
Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no
other than human inventions, set up to terrify
and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and
profit."
"He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty, he establishes
a precedent that will reach to himself"
"A bad cause will ever be supported by
bad means and bad men."
"Moderation in temper is always a virtue;
but moderation in principle is always a
vice."
"War involves in its progress such a train
of unforeseen and unsupposed circumstances
that no human wisdom can calculate its end.
It has but one thing certain and that is to
increase taxes."
"My country is the world"
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/intro.html
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.05/paine.html
*****************************************************
maff91
<sjt1957...@ntslink.net.invalid> wrote:
>I'm not sure what point American Patriot is making. Is it that
>Darwinism leads to racism? Then why is Steven J. Gould so
>fanatically anti-racist, and why do his fellow darwinists never
>criticize him for this alleged deviation from darwinism? Is it
>that Darwinism grew out of racism? Then why did darwinism not
>arise in the slaveholding American south, rather than in a
>family of abolitionists? That Darwin believed in racism, and
>therefore darwinism contains racism as a key doctrine?
".. I was crossing a ferry with a negro, who was uncommonly stupid. In
endeavouring to make him understand, I talked loud, and made signs, in
doing which I passed my hand near his face. He, I suppose, thought I
was in a passion, and was going to strike him; for instantly, with a
frightened look and half-shut eyes, he dropped his hands. I shall
never forget my feelings of surprise, disgust, and shame, at seeing a
great powerful man afraid even to ward off a blow, directed, as he
thought, at his face. This man had been trained to a degradation lower
than the slavery of the most helpless animal. " - Charles Dawin in The
Voyage of the Beagle Chapter 2 - Rio de Janeiro
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-voyage-of-the-beagle/chapter-02.html
>
>The first point which must be made is that darwinism is not a
>religion, and Darwin's writings are not its sacred scripture.
>Modern darwinists reject Darwin's belief in the inheritance of
>aquired characteristics. They reject his belief in "blending
>inheritance." They reject his confusion of biological and
>cultural evolution, implied in the quote you selected. Modern
>darwinism consists of those ideas of Darwin which are in accord
>with scientific facts, supplemented by additional discoveries.
>
>Secondly, Darwin believed that blacks were less intelligent than
>whites. In this he was joined by nearly every white English
>speaker alive in his day. Darwinism was first believed by
http://www.mediapro.net/cdadesign/paine/afri.html
A number of creationists have stated that evolutionary theory leads
logically to racism. This brief article discusses aspects of leading
ICR creationist Henry Morris's own beliefs that appear to be racist.
Also included is a summary analysis of the racism-creationism
connection by Tom McIver.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/racism.html
>deny that humans and apes are a single biological group, you can
>deny, in the face of any evidence, that blacks and whites are a
>single race. I do not say that creationism is racist, or that
>most creationists are racist. I know that most creationists now
>quote the line about "God made all nations from one blood" in
>support of racial equality. It was not always so, and on purely
>creationist grounds, there is no reason why it must be so.
>
>-- Steven J.
"My correspondent thinks with Mr. Jefferson, that Jehovah has no
*****************************************************
"Science is the true theology" -- Thomas Paine
(as quoted in Emerson: The Mind on Fire page 153)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0520206894/
"The Age of Paine" by Jon Katz
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.05/paine_pr.html
News for Nerds
http://www.slashdot.org/
*****************************************************
Mapi32
~Matthias
"Boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:38EFEDE4...@bellsouth.net...
American Patriot
"tweedyd" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote:
>
> American Patriot <ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8co42i$57j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
evidence.
> > Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
> > Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body
of
> > the book itself:
> >
> > "At some future period (Darwin writes), 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 the baboon, instead of as
> > now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles
Darwin,
> > The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
> > 178).
> >
> > So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
> > between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
> > Nosiree. Strictly science.
>
context,
In spite of claims to the contrary, no one here has posted
any 'context' that changes the meaning whatsoever. Typically, many
have assigned weeks of reading, but no one has given a context that
changes the meaning.
> one
> must understand the social context also. Darwin lived and worked in
a time
> where racism was accepted. The idea that Caucasans were "superior"
was
> casually assumed by nearly everyone at that time. Darwin's work
should not
> be expected to meet modern standards of racial equality.
His 'work' lent itself well to the furthering of this hateful belief.
It gave a 'scientific' basis to peoples idiotic bigotry.
>
> The history of Creationism is by no means exempt from similar
thinking
> as well. Racism was preached from the pulpit at the time, and the
Bible was
> used to support the idea. Blacks were supposed to be the descendants
of
> Ham, and were therefore "cursed" to serve the "superior" races.
Oops. That belief is the Mormons; and it is not confined to the
nineteenth century, but VERY late in the twentieth, long after 'racism'
fell out of vogue.
>
> Later evolutionary research proved that all human races are
biologically
> equal.
Define 'biologically equal', if you would.
> Changing social mores have led to the rejection of the concept of
> one race being superior to any other. The concept it still being
held onto,
> largely by right wing racist movements ( ironically many of them call
> themselves "Patriots" ).
No offense taken. Many idiot bigots call themselves 'evolutionists'
> Many of them use the Bible to support their
> racism.
Instead of O of S, which is truly racist.
>
> --
> Dana J. Tweedy
> (animal bipes implume)
>
>
--
Dick C.
>I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
>Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
>Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
>the book itself:
Terry, you should know by now that the beliefs of the originators of
scientific theories are irrelevant to science itself. The theories either
stand or fall on their own. It doesn't matter if Charles Darwin was a
fudamentalist christian, or a stalinist. How well his theory explains the
evidence, and whether or not it can be falsified is what matters.
You should also realize, especially after reading all the replies that
he was no more racist than anyone else in England at that time. And much
less so than many Americans. Especially those from the American South,
including Texas.
You are also aware that fundamentalism has itself buried deeply in racism,
modern day racism and bigotry. Almost all of the racist groups hold to a
fundamentalist view of the bible. And the most racist university in the
U.S. is a fundamentalist university.
I have no idea who you are trying to fool with you attempt to tie the TOE
to racism, most people are very much aware of the ties of your religion
to the evils of racism and bigotry. And you provide ample evidence of this
yourself with your bigotry.
>--
>'Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the
>glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible
>man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things'
>Saint Paul
I like your sig, Terry. It is so descriptive of you.
--
Dick #1349
People think that libraries are safe places, but they're not,
they have ideas.
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/
Dave Holloway
wrote:
>I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
>Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
>Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
>the book itself:
>
>"At some future period (Darwin writes), 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 the baboon, instead of as
>now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
>The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
>178).
>
>So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
>between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
>Nosiree. Strictly science.
>
Argument from Undesirable Consequences. Your argument is that we
should reject evolution because it would turn people into racists.
Even if that were the case -- and you seem to have gotten slammed in
that area -- it would not affect the truth of evolution one whit.
Evolution occured, period.
Dave
--
From the warped mind of Dave Holloway:
Quotemeister
a.a. #1184
Director of Defense and Sabotage, EAC Mars Division
Disgruntled Merkin
"Gish's Law: As the fossil record becomes more complete,
the number of gaps in it will increase."
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>In article <38ef...@news.desupernet.net>,
> "tweedyd" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote:
>>
.. The idea that Caucasans were "superior"
>was
>> casually assumed by nearly everyone at that time. Darwin's work
>should not
>> be expected to meet modern standards of racial equality.
>
>His 'work' lent itself well to the furthering of this hateful belief.
>It gave a 'scientific' basis to peoples idiotic bigotry.
gee...imagine...scientists can be racists...
creationists make another remarkable discovery...
>
>>
>> The history of Creationism is by no means exempt from similar
>thinking
>> as well. Racism was preached from the pulpit at the time, and the
>Bible was
>> used to support the idea. Blacks were supposed to be the descendants
>of
>> Ham, and were therefore "cursed" to serve the "superior" races.
>
>Oops. That belief is the Mormons; and it is not confined to the
>nineteenth century, but VERY late in the twentieth, long after 'racism'
>fell out of vogue.
wrong. absolutely wrong
where you getting those bizarre ideas? the hamitic hypothesis preceded
mormonism. and the hamitic hypothesis was used by catholics and
protestants in 1994 rwanda to justify genocide there.
i realize creationists like to make up history and science, but that's
ridiculous.
>
Elephant
others are doing in this thread, I'd rather look at some other aspects of
what is said herein...
American Patriot wrote:
> "At some future period (Darwin writes), 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..." (Charles
> Darwin,
> The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
> 178).
This much is happening, as Darwin foretold. Was he a prophet of the
Almighty? Or a scientific revolutionary who had the vision to see
something of the future through his budding theory? Looks like he made an
accurate prediction, on a grand scale: the "savage races" have been
marginalized worldwide, and their savagery much tempered with the fruits of
"civilization", while the great apes are on the verge of extinction.
--
~to reply by e-mail, remove the obvious spam blocker~
Mark Isaak
American Patriot <ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
Okay, I will grant that Darwin was every bit as racist as Abraham
Lincoln. What of it? What does that have to do with evolution?
Schockly was far, far more racist. Does that mean transistors don't work,
or just that we should never use them?
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"My determination is not to remain stubbornly with my ideas but
I'll leave them and go over to others as soon as I am shown
plausible reason which I can grasp." - Antony Leeuwenhoek
tweedyd
> > news:8co42i$57j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> evidence.
> > > Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body
> of
> > > the book itself:
> > >
> 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
> > > 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 the baboon, instead of as
> Darwin,
> > > The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
> > > 178).
> > >
> > > between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
> > > Nosiree. Strictly science.
> >
> context,
>
> In spite of claims to the contrary, no one here has posted
> any 'context' that changes the meaning whatsoever. Typically, many
> have assigned weeks of reading, but no one has given a context that
> changes the meaning.
Surely you can understand that taking a quote out of it's context can
clearly change the meaning.
>
> > one
> > must understand the social context also. Darwin lived and worked in
> a time
> > where racism was accepted. The idea that Caucasans were "superior"
> was
> > casually assumed by nearly everyone at that time. Darwin's work
> should not
> > be expected to meet modern standards of racial equality.
>
> His 'work' lent itself well to the furthering of this hateful belief.
> It gave a 'scientific' basis to peoples idiotic bigotry.
People's bigotry does not need any basis to survive. They will use whatever
they can to support their personal hatred. Darwin is not responsable for
what misuses his theory is put to, any more than the teachings of Christ are
responable for the horrors of the Inquisition.
>
> >
> > The history of Creationism is by no means exempt from similar
> thinking
> > as well. Racism was preached from the pulpit at the time, and the
> Bible was
> > used to support the idea. Blacks were supposed to be the descendants
> of
> > Ham, and were therefore "cursed" to serve the "superior" races.
>
> Oops. That belief is the Mormons; and it is not confined to the
> nineteenth century, but VERY late in the twentieth, long after 'racism'
> fell out of vogue.
Sorry, wrong answer. The Hamitic philosophy was used back to the days of
slavery. People who wanted to believe in racism used the bible to support
their views as well.
>
> >
> > Later evolutionary research proved that all human races are
> biologically
> > equal.
>
> Define 'biologically equal', if you would.
Ok, the words are quite common, you might try a dictionary. The phrase
means that all humans are the same (that is what equal means) in all their
life processes (that is what biologically means). Science has found that
racial differences in humans are entirely superficial (that means not
important). The concept of evolution is in no way used (by scientists) to
imply that any race is "better".
>
> > Changing social mores have led to the rejection of the concept of
> > one race being superior to any other. The concept it still being
> held onto,
> > largely by right wing racist movements ( ironically many of them call
> > themselves "Patriots" ).
>
> No offense taken. Many idiot bigots call themselves 'evolutionists'
I would submit that an understanding of evolution tends to go against
bigotry. Evolutionary theory states we are all members of the same species,
and that races are not important.
>
> > Many of them use the Bible to support their
> > racism.
>
> Instead of O of S, which is truly racist.
Origin of Species is no more racist than plumbing. Racism predates Darwin
by centuries.
Bloody Viking
: So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
: between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
: Nosiree. Strictly science.
Sometimes science is made for the wrong motive. Look how we furless apes
had, just HAD, to build an atom bomb before building a nuke powerplant.
And of course, we furless apes had to lob two of these bombs on our fellow
furless apes.
If Darwin was racist as that piece shows, Darwin was doing science for a
crappy motive. And so was the Manhatten Project done up for a bad motive.
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
4968238 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
Pat James
(in message <38f0a4b8$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>):
> In article <8co42i$57j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> American Patriot <ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
>> [quote from _Descent of Man_ deleted.]
>
> Okay, I will grant that Darwin was every bit as racist as Abraham
> Lincoln. What of it? What does that have to do with evolution?
> Schockly was far, far more racist. Does that mean transistors don't work,
> or just that we should never use them?
It certainly means that _Terry_ shouldn't use 'em. He's the ol' boy who's
pushing this "can't touch the products of someone who was a Bad Boy" crap.
Turn off that computer, Terry. And your TV. And your radio. And your VCR...
You car (especially yuor car; have a look at what Henry Ford got away with.
Ban all products the diseased system known as 'mass production' now! Such
evil(tm) must not be tolerated!)
Paul Gate
American Patriot <ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8cotnq$vtm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <38ef...@news.desupernet.net>,
> "tweedyd" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote:
> >
> > American Patriot <ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8co42i$57j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Assuming that this quote is correct, and that it is in fact in
> context,
>
> In spite of claims to the contrary, no one here has posted
> any 'context' that changes the meaning whatsoever. Typically, many
> have assigned weeks of reading, but no one has given a context that
> changes the meaning.
>
> > one
> > must understand the social context also. Darwin lived and worked in
> a time
> > where racism was accepted. The idea that Caucasans were "superior"
> was
> > casually assumed by nearly everyone at that time. Darwin's work
> should not
> > be expected to meet modern standards of racial equality.
>
> His 'work' lent itself well to the furthering of this hateful belief.
> It gave a 'scientific' basis to peoples idiotic bigotry.
That is unfortunate...and your point?
ZeldaG
>From: American Patriot ttra...@my-deja.com
>Date: 4/8/2000 8:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8cotnq$vtm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>> > So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
>> > between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
>> > Nosiree. Strictly science.
>>
>context,
>
>In spite of claims to the contrary, no one here has posted
>any 'context' that changes the meaning whatsoever. Typically, many
>have assigned weeks of reading, but no one has given a context that
>changes the meaning.
racist today, most Europeans thought it was fact.
>His 'work' lent itself well to the furthering of this hateful belief.
>It gave a 'scientific' basis to peoples idiotic bigotry.
Not at all. People (like yourself) would love to have seen Darwin quote or say
anything that would have given actual scientific weight to the biases of his
day. That the regurgipost of Nando's is the best you creationists can come up
with shows just how weak your argument is. One has only to see just voluminous
Darwin's writings are, and the depth of scholarship, to see that racism was not
on his agenda.
>> Later evolutionary research proved that all human races are
>biologically
>> equal.
>
>Define 'biologically equal', if you would.
>
>> Changing social mores have led to the rejection of the concept of
>> one race being superior to any other. The concept it still being
>held onto,
>> largely by right wing racist movements ( ironically many of them call
>> themselves "Patriots" ).
>
>No offense taken. Many idiot bigots call themselves 'evolutionists'
>
>> Many of them use the Bible to support their
>> racism.
>
>Instead of O of S, which is truly racist.
I realize I'm wasting my time with a hatemongering know-nothing, but in looking
over Darwin's chapter on races, I found this quote. In the process of
reviewing the chapter, it was obvious that racism was the furthest thing from
Darwin's mind. Indeed, he seemed to go to extreme pains to avoid the topic.
The imputing of racism is far more important to the minds of Creationists,
seeking to discredit Darwin. This is really very sad as it is clear that
Darwin was someone of extraordinary intellect and scholarship, utterly
undeserving of Creationists cheesy smear tactics.
Yes, this is the quote of a racist:
He who will read Mr. Tylor's and Sir J. Lubbock's interesting works*can hardly
fail to be deeply impressed with the close similaritybetween the men of all
races in tastes, dispositions and habits.This is shown by the pleasure which
they all take in dancing, rudemusic, acting, painting, tattooing, and otherwise
decorating themselves; in their mutual comprehension of gesture-language, by
the same expression in their features, and by the same inarticulate cries, when
excited by the same emotions. This similarity, or rather identity, is striking,
when contrasted with the differentexpressions and cries made by distinct
species of monkeys.
Jonathan Stone
maff91 <maf...@nospam.my-deja.com> wrote:
>On 8 Apr 2000 19:38:47 -0400, "Mapi32" <mapno...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>How about Jews? You left them out, racist.
>
>"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in
>his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially
>of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word
>be desecrated.
>
>For God's will gave men their form, their essence, and their
>abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's
>creation, the divine will. Therefore, let every man be active, each in
>his own denomination if you please, and let every man take it as his
>first and most sacred duty to oppose anyone who in his activity by
>word or deed steps outside the confines of his religious community and
>tries to butt into the other."
>
>.... 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."
>
>- Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf"
[snip more quotes]
Maff, if you're going to quote translations, you should cite the
translator as well as the author. (publisher edition and page-nos
would be nice, too).
White Raven
dold...@ocean.coastalw.com (Dave Oldridge) wrote:
> ttra...@my-deja.com (American Patriot) wrote in
> <8co42i$57j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>
> >Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body
of
> >the book itself:
> >
> >"At some future period (Darwin writes), 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 the baboon, instead of as
> >now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles
Darwin,
> >The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
> >178).
> >
> >between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
> >Nosiree. Strictly science.
>
> contemporaries does not change the scientific evaluation of evidence
> presently in hand. This whole argument is a false appeal to
emotional biases
> and has actually been made from both sides (depending what the arguer
thinks
> the bias of his hearers is).
>
> Hitler claimed alternately to be Christian and Darwinist. Neither
claim made
> his hollow earth theories any more or less scientific.
>
This is the proper response to these claims. Being a product of you
culture is not a crime nor does it invalidate the woth of your work.
One need only count the slave owning singitors of the constitution to
see this.
--
White Raven... Sad as a lonely little wrinkled balloon.
Fact: A state or an event.
Theory: Our explanation of a fact.
Beliefe: What we wish the facts were.
Bartman
> Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
> Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
> the book itself:
>
> "At some future period (Darwin writes), 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 the baboon, instead of as
> now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles
Darwin,
> The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
> 178).
>
> So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
> between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
> Nosiree. Strictly science.
>
>
> --
> 'Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the
> glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible
> man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things'
> Saint Paul
>
They can either be true or false.
Regards,
Bartman
American Patriot
First - love your handle!
Second - how about the theory that the superman could be bred by
exterminating all those with inferior genes? How about the theory that
the problems in germany were brought about by the Jewish blood, so they
all had to be killed? Or, for that matter, how about the theory that
the white Europeans are the TRUE Jews, and those now claiming to be
Jewish need to be exterminated (CI movement in the states)? Or how
about the theory that the Blacks are the cause of all our problems, so
we need to exterminate them (KKK, others).
I would be more inclined to contend, Bartman, that racism itself is
ALWAYS part of a theory, a belief, rather than being part of an
individual. I don't think anyone is born a racist, I think it is
something they aquire as part of their belief system. During my brief
stint as a racist, it was 100% due to the erronious information I had
been taught in the little northern town I grew up in. All the high
prices were due to the ethnic group that ran the stores there; all the
high taxes were due to the ethnic groups that lived on welfare, etc.
All it took to dispell it was to get out of the area I was born in, and
see what the real world was like.
In my adult life, I've never met a person I hated. I have ran across
several ideas I hate, however.
Shaloam
AmPat
Steven J.
<ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <8csbhd$i9e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>Bartman <bartm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
-- [snip]
>> Only conscious beings can be rascist. Theories are abstract
>> concepts.
>> They can either be true or false.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Bartman
>>
-- [snip]
>
>First - love your handle!
>
>Second - how about the theory that the superman could be bred by
>exterminating all those with inferior genes? How about the
>theory that the problems in germany were brought about by the
>Jewish blood, so they all had to be killed? Or, for that
>matter, how about the theory that the white Europeans are the
>TRUE Jews, and those now claiming to be Jewish need to be
>exterminated (CI movement in the states)? Or how about the
>theory that the Blacks are the cause of all our problems, so
>we need to exterminate them (KKK, others).
Darwinism is about natural selection. Breeding the superman is
about artificial selection, and could occur to anyone who had
ever bred plants or animals -- or to racist loons who had read
about breeding plants and animals. Good darwinists worried
about the misuse of their ideas to promote eugenics -- when
early 20th century American eugenicists were spouting slogans
like "more children from the fit, fewer from the unfit," it was
the leading darwinists of the day who pointed out that in strict
darwinian terms, the "fittest" WERE the ones who produced the
most offspring; government biological coercion was unneeded.
I have explained to you -- were you paying attention? -- that
concepts like "Jewish blood" and "inferior race" are gibberish
is darwinian terms. There cannot be any such thing as a
"superior race," only individuals with superior traits for a
particular environment. No idea could be deadlier to a racist
totalitarian ideology than that one. That the Nazis
occasionally spiced up their rhetoric with Darwinian jargon they
didn't BEGIN to understand proves neither that Naziism was a
logical consequence of Darwinism, nor that the Nazis ever TRIED
to be good darwinists. The KKK and the Christian Identity
movement don't even claim to base their particular claims of
darwinism; both groups are good creationists (well, okay, lousy
creationists, but anyway not evolutionists).
I do not think racism grows out of biological (or, for that
matter, theological) theories. It may grow out of bad economic
theories -- "the more there is for them, the less there is for
us," leading to attempts to find a "them" that "we" can cheat,
exploit, and blame for our problems. Racism seeks excuses, and
finds them in garbled versions of ideas popular in a culture.
The ideas come AFTER the individual's, or societies, need to
hate someone. Note that in America, racism grew out of the need
to justify the conquest of the aboriginal peoples and the
enslavement of Black Americans. This was first justified on
biblical grounds; later some attempt to create a "scientific"
racism was made. Darwinism was not the reason, barely even the
excuse, just a source for some jargon.
>I would be more inclined to contend, Bartman, that racism
>itself is ALWAYS part of a theory, a belief, rather than being
>part of an individual. I don't think anyone is born a racist,
>I think it is something they aquire as part of their belief
>system. During my brief stint as a racist, it was 100% due to
>the erronious information I had been taught in the little
>northern town I grew up in. All the high prices were due to
>the ethnic group that ran the stores there; all the high taxes
>were due to the ethnic groups that lived on welfare, etc.
>All it took to dispell it was to get out of the area I was born
>in, and see what the real world was like.
Then, in fact, darwinism had nothing to do with any actual
racism you felt or experienced? Have you ever actually met a
racist who justified his attitudes with darwinism? Have you
ever met anyone, who was not a racist as a creationist, who
accepted darwinism, and then became a racist?
>In my adult life, I've never met a person I hated. I have ran
>across several ideas I hate, however.
You mean, like the idea that evidence and logical thought are
superior to random assertions which vaguely support your
prejudices?
>
>Shaloam
>
>AmPat
acker james
: I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
: Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
: Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
: the book itself:
: "At some future period (Darwin writes), 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 the baboon, instead of as
: now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
: The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
: 178).
: So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
: between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
: Nosiree. Strictly science.
Terry,
Read this:
http://earth.ics.uci.edu/faqs/racism.html
and then decide if you still want to be associated with the
arch-creationists at the ICR.
Jim Acker
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Jim Acker
jac...@gl.umbc.edu
A second flood, a simple famine, plagues of locusts everywhere,
Or a cataclysmic earthquake, I'd accept with some despair.
But no, you sent us Congress! Good God, sir, was that fair?
--- John Adams, "Piddle, Twiddle, and Resolve", from the
musical "1776"
Dick C
<jac...@umbc8.umbc.edu> wrote:
>American Patriot <ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>: I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some
evidence.
>: Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny
that
>: Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the
body of
>: the book itself:
>
>
somewhere
>: between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
>: Nosiree. Strictly science.
>
> Terry,
>
> Read this:
>
>
>http://earth.ics.uci.edu/faqs/racism.html
>
> and then decide if you still want to be associated with
the
>arch-creationists at the ICR.
You see, Terry doesn't care if anyone from his side is racist or
not, as he is bigoted to begin with. He is just trying to drag
the TOE into the same pigsty as his religious beliefs.
Dick #1349
People think that libraries are safe places, but they're not,
they have ideas. Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/
email: dic...@uswest.net
Mitchell Coffey
American Patriot <ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
> Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
> Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
> the book itself:
I assume someone has pointed out already that your quote below is not
from "Origins of the Species", as you claim. Thus it does not support
your false claim that "the subtitle of 'origins' is racist". I assume
that, because you are an honest person, you will correct yourself.
> "At some future period (Darwin writes), 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 the baboon, instead of as
> now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles
Darwin,
> The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
> 178).
>
> So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
> between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
> Nosiree. Strictly science.
>
> Terry
Can you name three leading creationist in 1870 who did not hold
similar, racist views? How about 1965? When did your state of Texas
remove from its laws its prohibition on inter-ratial marrage? Why did
it have to be forced by the Supreme Court to do so?
Mitchell Coffey
_____________________________________________________
"Nostalgia is the handmaiden of fascism"
- Mary Gordon
Mitchell Coffey
> >
> > American Patriot <ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8co42i$57j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some
> evidence.
> > > Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
> > > Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the
body
> of
> > > the book itself:
> > >
[snip]
>
> Instead of O of S, which is truly racist.
[snip]
The quote you are using is not from the "Origin of the Species".
Dave Haas
> I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some evidence.
> Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
> Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the body of
> the book itself:
>
> "At some future period (Darwin writes), not very distant as measured by
> 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 the baboon, instead of as
> now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
> The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
> 178).
>
> So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls somewhere
> between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
> Nosiree. Strictly science.
>
Darwin was a product of his society just as the bible was. We know much
more today about the relationship between various groups of humans than was
known in the past. For some reason humans have this instinct to feel their
particular group or race is better than others. The same goes for various
religions. As you know some religions do not get along too well with each
other. Darwin also did not have the correct idea about how inheritance
worked. This does not mean that he was wrong about everything else.
Scientists have the same faults and instincts as do non scientists. They
have pet theories and make mistakes. It's the scientific method and peer
review that makes science a better way to find out about the world.
Religion uses the truth from authority method like earlier cultures. If God
or the medicine man says it is true it's true. Science tries to test ideas
before accepting them. Even then ideas can change as we learn more.
Religion never changes. God never changes. This is one reason science and
God don't mix too well.
Just remember everybody uses the scientific method to solve problems not
just scientists. What do you do when you get sick? Blame it on a black
cat? Germs? or the devil?
D. Haas
Mitchell Coffey
ae...@yahoo.com (Micheal Keane) wrote:
> ae...@yahoo.com (Micheal Keane) wrote in
> <8F1097009a...@207.217.77.24>:
> >Darwin was as racist as anyone else in that era. Or the racist roots
of
> >American democracy because the founding fathers owned slaves?
>
> That should read "Or what about the racists roots of American
democracy..."
>
> >It has nothing to do with evolution or democracy today
What you should have written was "Darwin was rather less racist than
most people in that era." This alleged patriot is not quoting "Origin
of the Species" as he claims. He is quoting "Decent of Man", which
also contains numerous condemnations of slavery, as do other of
Darwin's works. It also contains the following passage, remarkable for
1870:
"Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in
colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., 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." Descent of Man, chpt 1, 1871.
Mitchell Coffey
Darwin makes anti-slavery comments in Descent of Man, as well as in
Voyage of the Beagle. However, I find the following one of the more
remarkable quotes regarding race from _Descent_:
"Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in
colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., 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." Descent of Man, chpt 1, 1871.
As you can see, out-of-context quotation can be very misleading.
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>
>Second - how about the theory that the superman could be bred by
>exterminating all those with inferior genes? How about the theory that
>the problems in germany were brought about by the Jewish blood, so they
>all had to be killed?
ah, yes, the 'limpieza de sangre'....invented by spanish catholics in
the 16th century...of course they didnt kill ALL the jews..they just
threw them out of the country...long before darwin came along. racist
views of jews were present long before darwin. read about luther's
views of jews at:
http://home.flash.net/~twinkle/psycho/DARK/recreational/luther.html
as far as i know, luther wasnt a darwinist either. he sure did hate
jews. and he was german.
John Wilkins
<sjt1957...@ntslink.net.invalid> wrote:
|In article <8csfg7$m9v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, American Patriot
|<ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote:
|>In article <8csbhd$i9e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
|>Bartman <bartm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
|
|-- [snip]
|
|>> Only conscious beings can be rascist. Theories are abstract
|>> concepts.
|>> They can either be true or false.
|>>
|>> Regards,
|>>
|>> Bartman
|>>
|-- [snip]
|>
|>First - love your handle!
|>
|>Second - how about the theory that the superman could be bred by
|>exterminating all those with inferior genes? How about the
|>theory that the problems in germany were brought about by the
Consider the views of those who stressed "good blood" and "good breeding"
for centuries, all the way back as far as we have any record. Each era used
the language and fashionable concepts of the day, including animal
husbandry, astrological dominance (in the Mesopotamian valley), ethnic
difference (always), theology (mainly Christian, but one suspects that the
Jewish interdictions against miscegenation, although socially necessary to
the survival of the religion, are implicitly racist), cultural (the
"obvious" superiority of European civilisation), and eventually, when it
arrived, biology.
Interestingly, an early biologist, Buffon, argued against the prevailing
(French) biological racism that there was no biological difference between
races worthy of note. So, too, did Darwin and more importantly Wallace, who
mixes a curious cultural imperialism with biological egalitarianism which
is only occasional and vague in Darwin. Compare his views with that of
Agassiz or Galton and there is a marked difference.
But I think that apart from the fact that neither evolution nor
Christianity caused racism but have always been drawn into service of it,
the interesting thing is that the motivation for racism is always, IMO,
economic and political. One only hates or denigrates those who are needed
in a subservient role or are threatening one's political power or in order
to justify theft from those others. To this end, scientific ideas, half
digested, are as useful as misinterpretations and wanton abuse of sacred
writings.
But note that the idea that there *are* no races, only geographical
variants that defy simple classification, is an outcome of the very biology
and anthropology AmPat and nando and all the others hate so much. It was a
mix of theological and liberal views that established the principle in the
late nineteenth century that all should be considered equal before the law.
And it was scientific research based on Darwinian principles in
anthropology that established that the concept of "race" has no application
to human variants.
Those who adhere to "race" as a concept tend to like it because it suits
some political or economic agenda. Reverse discrimination is as racist as
the alternative, because if there is no such thing as the "negro" race
(Cavalli-Sforza and various others have shown that sub-Saharan African
populations are more diverse than the rest of the world combined) then
there can be no reparation. If native Americans or native Australians are
ethnically diverse, then this would interfere with political moves to gain
reparation (they think - I don't).
|
|>I would be more inclined to contend, Bartman, that racism
|>itself is ALWAYS part of a theory, a belief, rather than being
|>part of an individual. I don't think anyone is born a racist,
|>I think it is something they aquire as part of their belief
|>system. During my brief stint as a racist, it was 100% due to
|>the erronious information I had been taught in the little
|>northern town I grew up in. All the high prices were due to
|>the ethnic group that ran the stores there; all the high taxes
|>were due to the ethnic groups that lived on welfare, etc.
|>All it took to dispell it was to get out of the area I was born
|>in, and see what the real world was like.
|
|Then, in fact, darwinism had nothing to do with any actual
|racism you felt or experienced? Have you ever actually met a
|racist who justified his attitudes with darwinism? Have you
|ever met anyone, who was not a racist as a creationist, who
|accepted darwinism, and then became a racist?
|
|>In my adult life, I've never met a person I hated. I have ran
|>across several ideas I hate, however.
|
|You mean, like the idea that evidence and logical thought are
|superior to random assertions which vaguely support your
|prejudices?
|>
|>Shaloam
|>
|>AmPat
|>
|-- Steven J.
|
|* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
|The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
|
--
John Wilkins
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
Landis D. Ragon
>In article <8cotnq$vtm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> American Patriot <ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> In article <38ef...@news.desupernet.net>,
>> "tweedyd" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > American Patriot <ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> > news:8co42i$57j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> > > I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some
>> evidence.
>> > > Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
>> > > Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the
>body
>> of
>> > > the book itself:
>> > >
>> > > "At some future period (Darwin writes), not very distant as
>> > > measured by centuries, ...
>[snip]
>
>>
>> Instead of O of S, which is truly racist.
>[snip]
>
>
>The quote you are using is not from the "Origin of the Species".
Is it just me, or does anyone else visualize a flag waving in the
background whenever AP posts? Of course, the flag has this funny
looking black spider on it.
--
Landis Ragon (dS = dq/T)
Chief Elf in the Toy Factory.
"I've got a little list--I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed--who never would be missed!"
-- Gilbert and Sullivan : "The Mikado"
Mapi32
Jewish race.
~Matthias
<wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message news:38f2642f...@news.ptd.net...
> On 10 Apr 2000 07:56:02 -0400, American Patriot <ttra...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >Second - how about the theory that the superman could be bred by
> >exterminating all those with inferior genes? How about the theory that
> >the problems in germany were brought about by the Jewish blood, so they
> >all had to be killed?
>
Matt Silberstein
<CTMH4.110058$Tn4.7...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com> from "Mapi32"
<mapno...@home.com>:
[note: order changed to usenet standard]
[note: boikat wrote the following]
|> That must be why the KKK caries a burning torch in
|> one hand, and "The Descent of Man" in the other.
|> No wait. That's not "The Descent of Man", it's
|> the Bible.
|That wasn't a very good answer, in my opinion.
Let me fill in the gaps in the argument. Terry argued that there is
something objectionable about the theory of evolution because some
comment by Darwin seems racist. If that logic is correct, then there
is something way more objectionable about Christianity, which Terry
professes, due to the way more racist comments and actions by the KKK.
This simply points out one the failings with Terry's argument. There
were more. Darwin was not, for his time racist. The comment was not
all that racist. The theory does not depend on any racism. Whether or
not Darwin was racist or whether or not he made racist comments in his
book has no bearing on whether evolution happens or on whether the
theory of evolution explains the process. There are more errors in
Terry's comment, would you like to point them out or shall I?
---
Matt Silberstein
Unhappy the country that needs heros.
B. Brecht
Matt Silberstein
jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone):
[snip]
|Maff, if you're going to quote translations, you should cite the
|translator as well as the author. (publisher edition and page-nos
|would be nice, too).
It would be nice if his quotes had relevance as well, but we can't
have everything.
wf...@ptd.net
>You are quite wrong...Luther hated Talmudist/Orthodox religion, NOT the
>Jewish race.
you're welcome to prove this distortion of history. for those who wish
to decide for themselves, luther's hatred of judaism can be read, in a
translation of his own words at:
http://home.flash.net/~twinkle/psycho/DARK/recreational/luther.html
he makes no distinction between orthodoxy and other forms of judaism.
in addition, such splits in judaism did not exist at the time of
luther.
so go ahead...what else you gonna make up?
Johnny Bravo
wrote:
>Consider the views of those who stressed "good blood" and "good breeding"
The artificial environment introduced by humans required a whole new
set of traits for domesticated animals. Our idea of "most fit" had
little to do with more offspring in most cases. We bred for bigger
animals with leaner meat for eating, horses that ran fast for short
periods, ect. These animals would be wolf chow in no time if released
into the wild. In some cases we bred for more offspring than could be
supported in the wild, we have bred chickens that lay one or more eggs
in a day rather than one egg a week or even less. "Good Breeding"
implied most fit for civilized human society, rather than most fit in
wild or "uncivilized" settings. It is natural human vanity for those
lucky enough to be born into wealthy families, especially those with
titles, so see themselves as the "best" of humanity.
>But I think that apart from the fact that neither evolution nor
>Christianity caused racism but have always been drawn into service of it,
People have little trouble incorporating all their beliefs into one
world view. I have little doubt a racist flat-earther would say that
since "white" races came from the center of the world, they are
superior. <grin>
>the interesting thing is that the motivation for racism is always, IMO,
>economic and political.
People who have are easily resented by those who have not. It is
even easier to hate those who are obviously different than you. From
what I've seen, a great many racist attitudes are learned from
parents. People might not even be aware of it, just learned from
parents that this was the way to look at the world.
--
Best Wishes,
Johnny Bravo
BAAWA Knight, EAC - Temporal Adjustments Division
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all it's contents." - HPL
Johnny Bravo
>Ok, the words are quite common, you might try a dictionary. The phrase
>means that all humans are the same (that is what equal means) in all their
>life processes (that is what biologically means). Science has found that
>racial differences in humans are entirely superficial (that means not
>important). The concept of evolution is in no way used (by scientists) to
>imply that any race is "better".
Not in the commonly used sense of better, yet there are features of
different races that better suit them to different environments. The
main one I know of is skin color, darker races have protection from
sunburn, lighter races are better able to produce vitamin D in poor
light, eye folds offer slight protection from glare in frozen climes,
and as evolution shows, it only takes a very small advantage to
dominate a population in an environment.
For those specific functions, one race can be better than another.
But to make a general comparison would be as pointless as comparing a
finch that eats mostly hard seeds to one that eats mostly soft ones.
>> No offense taken. Many idiot bigots call themselves 'evolutionists'
>
>I would submit that an understanding of evolution tends to go against
>bigotry. Evolutionary theory states we are all members of the same species,
>and that races are not important.
I think his key word was "idiot", many idiot bigots call themselves
Christians instead of Evolutionists. While they feel it might support
them, it doesn't mean that Christianity is to blame, any more than
Evolution is. Bigots come in all shapes, sizes and other beliefs. :)
Mapi32
digging through my book collection.
Now then, I say that you took Luther out of context, in the same way AmPat
took Darwin out of context....you haven't read The Jews And Their Lies, have
you?
The entire book is directed against Talmudic Jews, NOT racial Jews. Luther
refers to the Jews as poor people several times, and also is angered that
the rabbis mislead the Jews. He also hopes for the coversion of the Jews,
although he says it is rare. He also states that the true church is composed
partly of Jews. Here are several examples:
"Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two
hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest.
With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his
poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such
evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God's blessing in a
good and worthy cause."
"They should not curse them or harm their persons, however. For the Jews
have cursed and harmed themselves more than enough by cursing the Man Jesus
of Nazareth, Mary's son, which they unfortunately have been doing for over
fourteen hundred years."
"The Christian church, composed of Jews and Gentiles, is such a new people
and a new Jerusalem."
"May Christ, our dear Lord, convert them mercifully and preserve us
steadfastly and immovably in the knowledge of him, which is eternal life.
Amen."
"Their accursed rabbis, who in deed know better, wantonly poison the minds
of their poor youth and of the common man and divert them from the truth.
For I believe that if these writings were read by the common man and the
youth they would stone all their rabbis and hate them more violently than
they do us Christians. But these villains prevent our sincere views from
coming to their attention. "
"Burgensis, who was one of their very learned rabbis, and who through the
grace of God became a Christian a very rare happening is much agitated by
the fact that they curse us Christians so vilely in their synagogues (as
Lyra also writes), and he deduces from this that they cannot be God's
people. For if they were, they would emulate the example of the Jews in the
Babylonian captivity. To them Jeremiah wrote, "Seek the welfare of the city
where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in
its welfare you will find your welfare" [Jer. 29:7]. But our bastards and
pseudo-Jews think they must curse us, hate us, and inflict every possible
harm upon us, although they have no cause for it. Therefore they surely are
no longer God's people. But we shall say more about this later. "
-I expect a retraction or a rebuttle soon.
regards,
~Matthias
<wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message news:38f28eea...@news.ptd.net...
wf...@ptd.net
>Thank you for this link!! It is appriciated, as it has saved me from
>digging through my book collection.
>
>Now then, I say that you took Luther out of context, in the same way AmPat
>took Darwin out of context....you haven't read The Jews And Their Lies, have
>you?
yeah i have. in fact i posted the link for you to look at. so, yes, i
have read it
>
>The entire book is directed against Talmudic Jews, NOT racial Jews
whatever a 'talmudic jew is'. luther never mentions it. it's not a
division of judaism now...and it never was. it's simply something you
made up. so try again
.. Luther
>refers to the Jews as poor people several times, and also is angered that
>the rabbis mislead the Jews.
if you can cite an instance of that, i'd be much obliged. you're
wrong. simply wrong. again, for those who want to read what luther
ACTUALLY said, instead of this sanitized version, the link is:
http://home.flash.net/~twinkle/psycho/DARK/recreational/luther.html
since 'talmudic judaism' doesnt exist...and luther NEVER mentions it,
all the while claiming JEWS are evil...
you're simply ignoring the facts. .no surprise from a creationist.
He also hopes for the coversion of the Jews,
>although he says it is rare. He also states that the true church is composed
>partly of Jews. Here are several examples:
>
>"Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted,
yeah. he likes converted jews. that's the whole point of the book.
otherwise he wants 'em dead.
>
>"They should not curse them or harm their persons, however. For the Jews
>have cursed and harmed themselves more than enough by cursing the Man Jesus
>of Nazareth, Mary's son, which they unfortunately have been doing for over
>fourteen hundred years."
perhaps you forgot this:
>What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews?
> Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are
> aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming.
i dont see the words 'talmudic' or 'rabbi' anywhere there. in fact,
nowhere does luther ever mention such things. you yourself point out
the ONLY time luther mentions a 'good jew'...that is, a converted jew.
thanks, i already know that.
>
>"Their accursed rabbis, who in deed know better, wantonly poison the minds
>of their poor youth and of the common man and divert them from the truth.
yeah, damn rabbis...cant trust any of 'em
>
>
>-I expect a retraction or a rebuttle soon.
>
>regards,
>~Matthias
you're deluded...sincerely deluded.
here's the rebuttal:
go read the book.
here's the opening paragraphs:
>I had made up my mind to write no more either about the Jews or against them.
> But since I learned that those miserable and accursed people do not cease to
> lure to themselves even us, that is, the Christians, I have published this little
> book, so that I might be found among those who opposed such poisonous
> activities of the Jews and who warned the Christians to be on their guard against
> them. I would not have believed that a Christian could be duped by the Jews
> into taking their exile and wretchedness upon himself. However, the devil is the
> god of the world, and wherever God's word is absent he has an easy task, not
> only with the weak but also with the strong. May God help us. Amen.
> Grace and peace in the Lord. Dear sir and good friend, I have received a treatise
> in which a Jew engages in dialog with a Christian. He dares to pervert the
> scriptural passages which we cite in testimony to our faith, concerning our Lord
> Christ and Mary his mother, and to interpret them quite differently. With this
> argument he thinks he can destroy the basis of our faith.
> This is my reply to you and to him. It is not my purpose to quarrel with the
> Jews, nor to learn from them how they interpret or understand Scripture; I know
> all of that very well already. Much less do I propose to convert the Jews, for
> that is impossible. Those two excellent men, Lyra and Burgensis, together with
> others, truthfully described the Jews' vile interpretation for us two hundred and
>one hundred years ago respectively. Indeed they refuted it thoroughly. However,
> this was no help at all to the Jews, and they have grown steadily worse.
>They have failed to learn any lesson from the terrible distress that has been theirs
> for over fourteen hundred years in exile. Nor can they obtain any end or definite
> terminus of this, as they suppose, by means of the vehement cries and laments
>to God. If these blows do not help, it is resonable to assume that our talking and
> explaining will help even less.
> Therefore a Christian should be content and not argue with the Jews. But if you
> have to or want to talk with them, do not say any more than this: "Listen, Jew,
> are you aware that Jerusalem and your sovereignty, together with your temple
> and priesthood, have been destroyed for over 1,460 years?" For this year,
> which we Christians write as the year 1542 since the birth of Christ, is exactly
> 1,468 years, going on fifteen hundred years, since Vespasian and Titus
> destroyed Jerusalem and expelled the Jews from the city. Let the Jews bite on
> this nut and dispute this question as long as they wish.
nowhere does luther mention rabbis. nowhere does he mention
'talmudism'....he talks about jews.
so, i expect from YOU a frank and honest admission that your
invention of the idea of 'talmudic judaism' was in error...
it's obvious, by the fact that even YOU could only find in luthers
writings good references to CONVERTED jews what he thought of
judaism...
wf...@ptd.net
>Thank you for this link!! It is appriciated, as it has saved me from
>digging through my book collection.
incidentally here's what you originally wrote:
>>You are quite wrong...Luther hated Talmudist/Orthodox religion, NOT the
>>Jewish race.
since
1. 'talmudist' judaism doesnt exist
2. orthodox judaism did not exist at the time of luther
it's obvious you havent a clue as to what you're talking about...
Mapi32
get through]
Thank you for this link!! It is appriciated, as it has saved me from
digging through my book collection.
Now then, I say that you took Luther out of context, in the same way AmPat
took Darwin out of context....you haven't read The Jews And Their Lies, have
you?
The entire book is directed against Talmudic Jews, NOT racial Jews. Luther
refers to the Jews as poor people several times, and also is angered that
the rabbis mislead the Jews. He also hopes for the coversion of the Jews,
although he says it is rare. He also states that the true church is composed
partly of Jews. Here are several examples:
"Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two
hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest.
With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his
poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such
evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God's blessing in a
good and worthy cause."
"They should not curse them or harm their persons, however. For the Jews
have cursed and harmed themselves more than enough by cursing the Man Jesus
of Nazareth, Mary's son, which they unfortunately have been doing for over
fourteen hundred years."
"The Christian church, composed of Jews and Gentiles, is such a new people
and a new Jerusalem."
"May Christ, our dear Lord, convert them mercifully and preserve us
steadfastly and immovably in the knowledge of him, which is eternal life.
Amen."
"Their accursed rabbis, who in deed know better, wantonly poison the minds
of their poor youth and of the common man and divert them from the truth.
For I believe that if these writings were read by the common man and the
youth they would stone all their rabbis and hate them more violently than
they do us Christians. But these villains prevent our sincere views from
coming to their attention. "
"Burgensis, who was one of their very learned rabbis, and who through the
grace of God became a Christian a very rare happening is much agitated by
the fact that they curse us Christians so vilely in their synagogues (as
Lyra also writes), and he deduces from this that they cannot be God's
people. For if they were, they would emulate the example of the Jews in the
Babylonian captivity. To them Jeremiah wrote, "Seek the welfare of the city
where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in
its welfare you will find your welfare" [Jer. 29:7]. But our bastards and
pseudo-Jews think they must curse us, hate us, and inflict every possible
harm upon us, although they have no cause for it. Therefore they surely are
no longer God's people. But we shall say more about this later. "
-I expect a retraction or a rebuttle soon.
regards,
~Matthias
<wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message news:38f28eea...@news.ptd.net...
> On 10 Apr 2000 21:15:24 -0400, "Mapi32" <mapno...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >You are quite wrong...Luther hated Talmudist/Orthodox religion, NOT the
> >Jewish race.
>
John Wilkins
<mapno...@home.com> wrote:
|Thank you for this link!! It is appriciated, as it has saved me from
|digging through my book collection.
|
|Now then, I say that you took Luther out of context, in the same way AmPat
|took Darwin out of context....you haven't read The Jews And Their Lies, have
|you?
|
|The entire book is directed against Talmudic Jews, NOT racial Jews. Luther
|refers to the Jews as poor people several times, and also is angered that
|the rabbis mislead the Jews. He also hopes for the coversion of the Jews,
|although he says it is rare. He also states that the true church is composed
|partly of Jews. Here are several examples:
<snip examples>
I suspect that Mapi is correct here. Luther was rarely against any people
as such, ethnic or otherwise. He was, however fixated on correct belief,
and so if he attacked "the Jews", as he did, it would have been because
they were, in their beliefs, minions of Satan, not because they were of a
different physiognomy or colour.
However, Luther may have been heir to the established "Jews killed Jesus"
tradition ("His death be on us and our children") and I doubt that he
clearly distinguished between their "race" and their religious culture.
That sort of distinction is many centuries later, and religion and race are
tied together then and later. One suspects that conversion merely atones
for race rather than being the issue being orthodoxy.
Luther also had some nasty attitudes to challenges to authority, that sit
uneasily in one who did exactly that, in the way he approached the
Peasant's Rebellion in, what, 1525? Basically IIRC the Christian Prince is
exhorted to smash, stab and slay these rebels, and of course that's just
what they did.
|
|
|-I expect a retraction or a rebuttle soon.
|
|regards,
|~Matthias
|
|
|
|
|
|<wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message news:38f28eea...@news.ptd.net...
|> On 10 Apr 2000 21:15:24 -0400, "Mapi32" <mapno...@home.com> wrote:
|>
|> >You are quite wrong...Luther hated Talmudist/Orthodox religion, NOT the
|> >Jewish race.
|>
|> you're welcome to prove this distortion of history. for those who wish
|> to decide for themselves, luther's hatred of judaism can be read, in a
|> translation of his own words at:
|>
|> http://home.flash.net/~twinkle/psycho/DARK/recreational/luther.html
|>
|> he makes no distinction between orthodoxy and other forms of judaism.
|> in addition, such splits in judaism did not exist at the time of
|> luther.
|>
|> so go ahead...what else you gonna make up?
|>
|
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>In article <OxxI4.115395$Tn4.7...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>, "Mapi32"
><mapno...@home.com> wrote:
>
> |Thank you for this link!! It is appriciated, as it has saved me from
> |digging through my book collection.
> |
> |Now then, I say that you took Luther out of context, in the same way AmPat
> |took Darwin out of context....you haven't read The Jews And Their Lies, have
> |you?
> |
> |The entire book is directed against Talmudic Jews, NOT racial Jews. Luther
> |refers to the Jews as poor people several times, and also is angered that
> |the rabbis mislead the Jews. He also hopes for the coversion of the Jews,
> |although he says it is rare. He also states that the true church is composed
> |partly of Jews. Here are several examples:
><snip examples>
>
>I suspect that Mapi is correct here.
except there is no such thing as 'talmudic judaism'. luther certainly
never mentions it. the only time he mentions 'good jews' is when they
have converted. otherwise he wants them dead.
Luther was rarely against any people
>as such, ethnic or otherwise. He was, however fixated on correct belief,
>and so if he attacked "the Jews", as he did, it would have been because
>they were, in their beliefs, minions of Satan, not because they were of a
>different physiognomy or colour.
im not sure how that differs from antijudaism. and he didnt 'attack'
the jews...he called for their destruction or expulsion
thats quite a difference john.
>
>Luther also had some nasty attitudes to challenges to authority, that sit
>uneasily in one who did exactly that, in the way he approached the
>Peasant's Rebellion in, what, 1525? Basically IIRC the Christian Prince is
>exhorted to smash, stab and slay these rebels, and of course that's just
>what they did.
and thats what he advocated christians do to jews. nowhere does he
accept judaism. nowhere does he even allow that it exist. nowhere does
he allow jews have civil rights. he wants nothing from jews except
their disappearance.
>
> |
Bigdakine
>From: "Mapi32" mapno...@home.com
>Date: 4/10/00 3:15 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <O0vI4.114737$Tn4.7...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>
>
>You are quite wrong...Luther hated Talmudist/Orthodox religion, NOT the
>Jewish race.
Oh, well! That is much better.
I'm hoping the above was a troll.
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
Mapi32
dishonest, isn't it? It also seems you declined to respond to several of
the quotes that refuted your cause(?).
I restored the deleted parts for reference, hope you don't mind.
-Here are more quotes where Luther mentions the Jews following their
rabbis...obviously you missed them when you "read" the book. You are either
delusional or lying in your statements, as any sane, unbiased person who
actually read the book can tell.
"I once experienced this myself. Three learned Jews came to me, hoping to
discover a new Jew in me because we were beginning to read Hebrew here in
Wittenberg, and remarking that matters would soon improve since we
Christians were starting to read their books. When I debated with them, they
gave me their glosses, as they usually do. But when I forced them back to
the text, they soon fled from it, saying that they were obliged to believe
their rabbis as we do the pope and the doctors, etc. I took pity on them and
give them a letter of recommendation to the authorities, asking that for
Christ's sake they let them freely go their way."
"Their accursed rabbis, who in deed know better, wantonly poison the minds
of their poor youth and of the common man and divert them from the truth."
"But this arbitrary interpretation of the rabbis points to a foreign rod
which does not rest in Judah's hand but on Judah's back and is wielded by a
foreign hand."
"But after having been hounded a long time, they still persisted in their
obstinacy and now set to erring consciously, and would not depart from their
rabbis. Thus we must let them go their way and ignore their malicious
blasphemy and lying."
"After this formidable defeat they themselves called Kokhba, their lost
Messiah, "Kozba," which rhymes with it and has a similar ring. For thus
write their Talmudists: You must not read "Kokhba," but "Kozba." Therefore
all history books now refer to him as Koziban. "Kozba" means "false.""
"Oh, how ridiculous it seems to these circumcised saints that we accursed
Goyim have interpreted and understand this saying thus, especially since we
did not consult their rabbis, Talmudists, and Kokhbaites whom they regard as
more authoritative than all of Scripture- For they do a far better job of
it."
"And if he were to go on to do something coarser than that, they would
nevertheless expect it to be regarded as a golden Talmud."
-This can go on forever, as there are NUMEROUS occasions where Luther
mentions rabbis & the talmud. The whole book is directed against them. You
flaunt your ignorance & bias by taking Luther out of context.
-See more quotes below, to refute your audacious claims.
<wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message news:38f2a67c...@news.ptd.net...
> On 11 Apr 2000 00:07:30 -0400, "Mapi32" <mapno...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Thank you for this link!! It is appriciated, as it has saved me from
> >digging through my book collection.
> >
> >Now then, I say that you took Luther out of context, in the same way
AmPat
> >took Darwin out of context....you haven't read The Jews And Their Lies,
have
> >you?
>
> yeah i have. in fact i posted the link for you to look at. so, yes, i
> have read it
> >
> >The entire book is directed against Talmudic Jews, NOT racial Jews
>
> whatever a 'talmudic jew is'. luther never mentions it. it's not a
> division of judaism now...and it never was. it's simply something you
> made up. so try again
-Then what, pray tell, is an Orthodox Jew?? And what about THIS quote?:
"They had a rabbi, or Talmudist, named Akiba, a very learned man, esteemed
by them more highly than all other rabbis, a venerable, honorable,
gray-haired man."
-Well, what now?
>
> .. Luther
> >refers to the Jews as poor people several times, and also is angered that
> >the rabbis mislead the Jews.
>
> if you can cite an instance of that, i'd be much obliged. you're
> wrong. simply wrong. again, for those who want to read what luther
> ACTUALLY said, instead of this sanitized version, the link is:
>
> http://home.flash.net/~twinkle/psycho/DARK/recreational/luther.html
>
> since 'talmudic judaism' doesnt exist...and luther NEVER mentions it,
> all the while claiming JEWS are evil...
-REALLY??? Then where did these quotes come from??
"Why, their Talmud and their rabbis record that it is no sin for a Jew to
kill a Gentile, but it is only a sin for him to kill a brother Israelite.
Nor is it a sin for a Jew to break his oath to a Gentile. Likewise, they say
that it is rendering God a service to steal or rob from a Goy, as they in
fact do through their usury. For since they believe that they are the noble
blood and the circumcised saints and we the accursed Goyim, they cannot
treat us too harshly or commit sin against us, for they are the lords of the
world and we are their servants, yes, their cattle."
"In brief, our evangelists also tell us what their rabbis taught."
"Indeed, I believe that three of Aesop's fables, half of Cato, and several
comedies of Terence contain more wisdom and more instruction about good
works than can be found in the books of all the Talmudists and rabbis and
more than may ever occur to the hearts of all the Jews."
"They curse us Goyim. In their synagogues and in their prayers they wish us
every misfortune. They rob us of our money and goods through their usury,
and they play on us every wicked trick they can. And the worst of it is that
they still claim to have done right and well, that is, to have done God a
service."
-Of course there are more, but why bother, when you can read the whole thing
for yourself at:
http://home.flash.net/~twinkle/psycho/DARK/recreational/luther.html
>
> you're simply ignoring the facts. .no surprise from a creationist.
-If you are an example of all evolutionists, they should be ashamed.
> He also hopes for the coversion of the Jews,
> >although he says it is rare. He also states that the true church is
composed
> >partly of Jews. Here are several examples:
> >
> >"Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted,
>
> yeah. he likes converted jews. that's the whole point of the book.
> otherwise he wants 'em dead.
-Gee, it seems as though the very next quote contradicts you.
>
> >
> >"They should not curse them or harm their persons, however. For the Jews
> >have cursed and harmed themselves more than enough by cursing the Man
Jesus
> >of Nazareth, Mary's son, which they unfortunately have been doing for
over
> >fourteen hundred years."
>
> perhaps you forgot this:
>
> >What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the
Jews?
> > Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that
we are
> > aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming.
>
> i dont see the words 'talmudic' or 'rabbi' anywhere there. in fact,
> nowhere does luther ever mention such things.
-See top & bottom, fool.
{/start falsly sniped quotes/}
"The Christian church, composed of Jews and Gentiles, is such a new people
and a new Jerusalem."
"May Christ, our dear Lord, convert them mercifully and preserve us
steadfastly and immovably in the knowledge of him, which is eternal life.
Amen."
"Burgensis, who was one of their very learned rabbis, and who through the
grace of God became a Christian a very rare happening is much agitated by
the fact that they curse us Christians so vilely in their synagogues (as
Lyra also writes), and he deduces from this that they cannot be God's
people. For if they were, they would emulate the example of the Jews in the
Babylonian captivity. To them Jeremiah wrote, "Seek the welfare of the city
where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in
its welfare you will find your welfare" [Jer. 29:7]. But our bastards and
pseudo-Jews think they must curse us, hate us, and inflict every possible
harm upon us, although they have no cause for it. Therefore they surely are
no longer God's people. But we shall say more about this later. "
{/end falsly sniped quotes/}
> you yourself point out
> the ONLY time luther mentions a 'good jew'...that is, a converted jew.
>
> thanks, i already know that.
>
>
> >
> >"Their accursed rabbis, who in deed know better, wantonly poison the
minds
> >of their poor youth and of the common man and divert them from the truth.
>
> yeah, damn rabbis...cant trust any of 'em
-But wait! You just said Luther never mentioned rabbis...Can this be a
contradiction??
-Eat your words, liar.
> it's obvious, by the fact that even YOU could only find in luthers
> writings good references to CONVERTED jews what he thought of
> judaism...
>
*****************************************************************
~Matthias
"Why 'o why do I respond to assholes?"
Mapi32
"Bigdakine" <bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip> wrote in message
news:20000411005217...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: the Racist Roots of Evolution.
> >From: "Mapi32" mapno...@home.com
> >Date: 4/10/00 3:15 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
> >Message-id: <O0vI4.114737$Tn4.7...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>
> >
> >You are quite wrong...Luther hated Talmudist/Orthodox religion, NOT the
> >Jewish race.
>
> Oh, well! That is much better.
-Oh? I suppose you conveniently forgot all the passages in the Talmud
calling for the death of Christians. Or the passages where the Gentiles are
referred to as animals? Racisim? Nah.
> I'm hoping the above was a troll.
-No such luck, sorry. Trolls are so much easier to debate than someone who
can actually make a real argument, huh?
~Matthias
Mapi32
<wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message news:38f2aa8e...@news.ptd.net...> >In article <OxxI4.115395$Tn4.7...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>, "Mapi32"
> ><mapno...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > |Thank you for this link!! It is appriciated, as it has saved me from
> > |digging through my book collection.
> > |
> > |Now then, I say that you took Luther out of context, in the same way
AmPat
> > |took Darwin out of context....you haven't read The Jews And Their Lies,
have
> > |you?
> > |
Luther
> > |refers to the Jews as poor people several times, and also is angered
that
Jews,
> > |although he says it is rare. He also states that the true church is
composed
> > |partly of Jews. Here are several examples:
> >
> >I suspect that Mapi is correct here.
>
> except there is no such thing as 'talmudic judaism'. luther certainly
> never mentions it. the only time he mentions 'good jews' is when they
> have converted. otherwise he wants them dead.
-YOU are the ONLY one who used the term 'talmudic judaism'....reread your
posts, I never used that term.
> Luther was rarely against any people
> >as such, ethnic or otherwise. He was, however fixated on correct belief,
> >and so if he attacked "the Jews", as he did, it would have been because
> >they were, in their beliefs, minions of Satan, not because they were of a
> >different physiognomy or colour.
>
> im not sure how that differs from antijudaism. and he didnt 'attack'
> the jews...he called for their destruction or expulsion
-Wrong again, he called for the destruction of their synagogues.
> thats quite a difference john.
>
> >
> >Luther also had some nasty attitudes to challenges to authority, that sit
> >uneasily in one who did exactly that, in the way he approached the
> >Peasant's Rebellion in, what, 1525? Basically IIRC the Christian Prince
is
> >exhorted to smash, stab and slay these rebels, and of course that's just
> >what they did.
>
> and thats what he advocated christians do to jews. nowhere does he
> accept judaism. nowhere does he even allow that it exist. nowhere does
> he allow jews have civil rights. he wants nothing from jews except
> their disappearance.
-How 'bout their conversion? Or did you conveniently forget those quotes
too?
~Matthias
"A truthful witness does not deceive, but a false witness pours out lies.
A mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easy to the
discerning." -Proverbs 14:5-6
Ghostview
"Mapi32" <mapno...@home.com> wrote:
> -Here are more quotes where Luther mentions the Jews
> following their
> rabbis...obviously you missed them when you "read" the
> book. You are either
> delusional or lying in your statements, as any sane,
> unbiased person who
> actually read the book can tell.
Nice ad hominems. do you consider that a valid argument?
Why?
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Ghostview
"Mapi32" <mapno...@home.com> wrote:
> -No such luck, sorry. Trolls are so much easier to
> debate than someone who
> can actually make a real argument, huh?
Ad hominems are not real arguments, duh...
Mapi32
tactics....Why?
#2: You say "do you consider that a valid argument"....Obviously not by its
self, or I would have ONLY used them to "prove" my argument and nothing
else.
nice try at nit-picking though,
~Matthias
"Ghostview" <ghostview31...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:1ca4f2e8...@usw-ex0108-062.remarq.com...
> In article <5uyI4.115657$Tn4.7...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>,
> "Mapi32" <mapno...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > -Here are more quotes where Luther mentions the Jews
> > following their
> > rabbis...obviously you missed them when you "read" the
> > book. You are either
> > delusional or lying in your statements, as any sane,
> > unbiased person who
> > actually read the book can tell.
>
> Nice ad hominems. do you consider that a valid argument?
> Why?
>
>
>
>
Mapi32
"Ghostview" <ghostview31...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <KQyI4.115661$Tn4.7...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>,
> "Mapi32" <mapno...@home.com> wrote:
> > -No such luck, sorry. Trolls are so much easier to
> > debate than someone who
> > can actually make a real argument, huh?
>
> Ad hominems are not real arguments, duh...
*sigh*........Then please explain all the evidence where I proved Wf3h
statements wrong. Infact, why don't you go further and join Wf3h in making
stupid claims.
And you tell AmPat how *he* takes stuff out of context, damn! Talk about
audacity.
~Matthias
August Pamplona
> On 11 Apr 2000 00:07:30 -0400, "Mapi32" <mapno...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Thank you for this link!! It is appriciated, as it has saved me from
> >digging through my book collection.
>
>
> >>Jewish race.
>
>
> 1. 'talmudist' judaism doesnt exist
>
> 2. orthodox judaism did not exist at the time of luther
>
> it's obvious you havent a clue as to what you're talking about...
>
I'm not sure how this expression would be normally used (in fact I'm not
100% certain that I've even seen it before), but it is seems from the
context, that "Talmudic Jew" is Matthias' way of referring to any member of
the Jewish religion (though only after backtracking since he originally
referred to the "Talmudic/Orthodox religion" --as if specifying a subset).
The reason he brought this up is because in the original context of your
message, you seemed to be writing about racial/ethnic hatred of Luther
toward the Jews; whereas, if Luther accepted converted Jews, his hatred
would be directed towards the religion (that is, religious biggotry rather
than ethnic biggotry).
On the other hand, attempting to convert the Jews did not exactly seem
to be his top priority which would, for all practical purposes, put him
squarely in the "the only good Jew is a dead Jew" camp rather than in the
"the only good Jew is an ex-Jew" camp.
The same criticism could be brought against your earlier mention of the
expulsion of the Jews from Spain when (as inferred from the context) you
seemed to be implying that it was a sort of racial/ethnic culling. It was
nothing of the sort. It was _religious_ prejudice pure and simple (religious
culling, if you wish --not that it makes it any better).
The Jews had exactly three choices: leave, convert or die (again, you
left out the conversion option). In fact, something commonly called the
Inquisition became pretty popular shortly thereafter and it's function was
to uncover the converts who were secretly practicing the Jewish religion
(when "found out", they would promptly be offered the choice of death behind
door number one, death behind door number two or --you guessed it-- death
behind door number three). In other words, it was not a good thing to be a
convert those days if the next door neighboor had a grudge against you. In
fact, I understand the infamous Torquemada was himself a convert (and I
myself am very likely the descendant of converts --can you guess what city a
hypothetical Jewish ancestor of mine would have lived in when he made the
sensible decision not to be murdered and convert to Christianity?).
Ah, such good Christians! Those were the days!
Remember that this started with the argument that racist views existed
before Darwin. I'm not arguing that this is not so (I don't even know how
one would go about doing that given the absurdity of the proposition), but
rather that you used examples which do not neccesarily support it.
August Pamplona
P.S. I suspect that the mentions of Talmudists in the quotes that have been
bandied about are either synonymous with Jew or, more likely, refer to
someone who has some level of scholarship in the Talmud (IOW a reference to
rabbis).
--
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
* August Pamplona *
* necatoramericanusa...@poboxes.com *
* email replace 'necatoramericanusancylostomaduodenale' with 'cosmicaug' *
* ------------------------------------------------------------------------*
Mapi32
~Matthias
<snip irrelevant text>
>
> I suspect that Mapi is correct here. Luther was rarely against any people
> as such, ethnic or otherwise. He was, however fixated on correct belief,
> and so if he attacked "the Jews", as he did, it would have been because
> they were, in their beliefs, minions of Satan, not because they were of a
> different physiognomy or colour.
>
> However, Luther may have been heir to the established "Jews killed Jesus"
> tradition ("His death be on us and our children") and I doubt that he
> clearly distinguished between their "race" and their religious culture.
> That sort of distinction is many centuries later, and religion and race
are
> tied together then and later. One suspects that conversion merely atones
> for race rather than being the issue being orthodoxy.
>
> Luther also had some nasty attitudes to challenges to authority, that sit
> uneasily in one who did exactly that, in the way he approached the
> Peasant's Rebellion in, what, 1525? Basically IIRC the Christian Prince is
> exhorted to smash, stab and slay these rebels, and of course that's just
> what they did.
<snip irrelevant text>
John Wilkins
|On 11 Apr 2000 00:27:53 -0400, John Wilkins <wil...@wehi.edu.au>
|wrote:
|
|>In article <OxxI4.115395$Tn4.7...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>, "Mapi32"
|><mapno...@home.com> wrote:
|>
|> |Thank you for this link!! It is appriciated, as it has saved me from
|> |digging through my book collection.
|> |
|> |Now then, I say that you took Luther out of context, in the same way
|> |AmPat
|> |took Darwin out of context....you haven't read The Jews And Their Lies,
|> |have
|> |you?
|> |
|> |The entire book is directed against Talmudic Jews, NOT racial Jews.
|> |Luther
|> |refers to the Jews as poor people several times, and also is angered
|> |that
|> |the rabbis mislead the Jews. He also hopes for the coversion of the
|> |Jews,
|> |although he says it is rare. He also states that the true church is
|> |composed
|> |partly of Jews. Here are several examples:
|><snip examples>
|>
|>I suspect that Mapi is correct here.
|
|except there is no such thing as 'talmudic judaism'. luther certainly
|never mentions it. the only time he mentions 'good jews' is when they
|have converted. otherwise he wants them dead.
|
|Luther was rarely against any people
|>as such, ethnic or otherwise. He was, however fixated on correct belief,
|>and so if he attacked "the Jews", as he did, it would have been because
|>they were, in their beliefs, minions of Satan, not because they were of a
|>different physiognomy or colour.
|
|im not sure how that differs from antijudaism. and he didnt 'attack'
|the jews...he called for their destruction or expulsion
|
|thats quite a difference john.
Yer, I thought about it after I posted, and I suppose I was sufficiently
vague to be unhelpful and open to antisemitic construals.
I want to say this:
1. Luther was opposed to a theology/religion/culture, not a biology
2. Luther didn't distinguish between biology and culture, etc, as nobody
did in those days.
Hence, Luther's undoubted antisemiticsm is *motivated* by cultural
xenophobia rather than biological racism. It boils down in practice to the
same thing (as the anti-Jewish pogrom granddaddy of them all in Richard
Lionheart's England also did), but there's a distinction to be made.
The so-called "talmudic judaism" is Mapi's vague way of making this point.
Whether Talmudic studies were in vogue in the early Reformation period in
Germany is beyond my knowledge. I thought something like the Talmud was
around then, but I am probably wrong. Will Pratt, do you know?
|
|>
|>Luther also had some nasty attitudes to challenges to authority, that sit
|>uneasily in one who did exactly that, in the way he approached the
|>Peasant's Rebellion in, what, 1525? Basically IIRC the Christian Prince is
|>exhorted to smash, stab and slay these rebels, and of course that's just
|>what they did.
|
|and thats what he advocated christians do to jews. nowhere does he
|accept judaism. nowhere does he even allow that it exist. nowhere does
|he allow jews have civil rights. he wants nothing from jews except
|their disappearance.
No, I think what he *wants*, but doesn't expect, is their conversion, as
the Inquisition later did in Spain (with even more efficacious means and
thus higher expectations). However, in practice it doesn't matter because
the aim of Lutheranism in its worst moments is to exterminate Judaism, and
if that means exterminating individual Jews, then I'm sure they'd have
happily undertaken it. How far his immediate followers like Phillip
Melancthon (who was more humanist in his approach) agreed with this after
Luther's death is open to question. Luther was a rough peasant in many
ways, for all his skills and abilities, and Melancthon was, IIRC, of
"better" birth and education.
Compare that attitude with Calvinist Holland, though. There was a fair bit
more tolerance there, although I think it is motivated by economic
considerations more than anything else.
Mapi32
>
> >Thank you for this link!! It is appriciated, as it has saved me from
> >digging through my book collection.
>
>
> >>You are quite wrong...Luther hated Talmudist/Orthodox religion, NOT the
> >>Jewish race.
>
> since
>
> 1. 'talmudist' judaism doesnt exist
~Of course you have proof of this, right? In peer reviewed journals?
> 2. orthodox judaism did not exist at the time of luther
~Again, no proof. BTW Orthodox judaism IS talmudic.
> it's obvious you havent a clue as to what you're talking about...
~Really? Anyone reading Luther's works with an unbiased mind would conclude
differently.
~Matthias
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -Aldous Huxley
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity." -Martin Luther King, Jr.
"He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason
is weak." -Michel de Montaigne
Mapi32
> Whether Talmudic studies were in vogue in the early Reformation period in
> Germany is beyond my knowledge. I thought something like the Talmud was
> around then, but I am probably wrong. Will Pratt, do you know?
Mr. Wilkins, the Talmud is a collection of parables, sayings, teachings &
practices of rabbis, memorized by rabbinical scholars, and carried down
through the generations....It is now in published(book) format. I do not at
this time know exactly when the Talmud, as a completed works, was written
down though. I will try and find this information out (not that it really
matters, since Talmudic teachings WERE going on in the times of Luther)
<snip everything else>
regards,
~Matthias
Mapi32
http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm#Talmud
http://www.infoplease.com/ce5/CE050716.html
http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txo/talmud.htm
Also, here are a few definitions & links for Wf3h to think(!) about:
Talmud:
Pronunciation: (täl'mood, -mud, tal'-), [key] -n.
1. the collection of Jewish law and tradition consisting of the Mishnah and
the Gemara and being either the edition produced in Palestinea.d.c400 or the
larger, more important one produced in Babyloniaa.d.c500.
2. the Gemara.
Talmudist:
Pronunciation: (täl'moo-dist, -mu-, tal'-), [key] -n.
1. a person versed in the Talmud.
2. one of the writers or compilers of the Talmud.
3. a person who accepts or supports the doctrines of the Talmud.
Judaism:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001462.html
~Matthias
"A good listener tries to understand thoroughly what the other person is
saying. In the end he may disagree sharply, but before he disagrees, he
wants to know exactly what it is he is disagreeing with."
-Kenneth A. Wells
"Mapi32" <mapno...@home.com> wrote in message
news:gpAI4.116142$Tn4.7...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
Mapi32
never read. -Charles Churchill
~Hmmmm, this wouldn't be talking about you now, would it?
~Matthias
<wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message news:38f2a8f1...@news.ptd.net...
> On 11 Apr 2000 00:07:30 -0400, "Mapi32" <mapno...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Thank you for this link!! It is appriciated, as it has saved me from
> >digging through my book collection.
>
> incidentally here's what you originally wrote:
>
> >>You are quite wrong...Luther hated Talmudist/Orthodox religion, NOT the
> >>Jewish race.
>
> since
>
> 1. 'talmudist' judaism doesnt exist
>
> 2. orthodox judaism did not exist at the time of luther
>
Mapi32
on-and-off]
<wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message news:38f2a8f1...@news.ptd.net...
> On 11 Apr 2000 00:07:30 -0400, "Mapi32" <mapno...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Thank you for this link!! It is appriciated, as it has saved me from
> >digging through my book collection.
>
> incidentally here's what you originally wrote:
>
> >>You are quite wrong...Luther hated Talmudist/Orthodox religion, NOT the
> >>Jewish race.
>
> since
>
> 1. 'talmudist' judaism doesnt exist
~Of course you have proof of this, right? In peer reviewed journals?
> 2. orthodox judaism did not exist at the time of luther
~Again, no proof. BTW Orthodox judaism IS talmudic.
> it's obvious you havent a clue as to what you're talking about...
Bigdakine
>Message-id: <eXyI4.115662$Tn4.7...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>
>
>
><wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message news:38f2aa8e...@news.ptd.net...>> >In article <OxxI4.115395$Tn4.7...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>, "Mapi32"
>> ><mapno...@home.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > |Thank you for this link!! It is appriciated, as it has saved me from
>> > |digging through my book collection.
>> > |
>AmPat
>> > |took Darwin out of context....you haven't read The Jews And Their Lies,
>have
>> > |you?
>> > |
>> > |The entire book is directed against Talmudic Jews, NOT racial Jews.
>Luther
>> > |refers to the Jews as poor people several times, and also is angered
>that
>> > |the rabbis mislead the Jews. He also hopes for the coversion of the
>Jews,
>> > |although he says it is rare. He also states that the true church is
>composed
>> > |partly of Jews. Here are several examples:
>> ><snip examples>
>> >
>> >I suspect that Mapi is correct here.
>>
>> except there is no such thing as 'talmudic judaism'. luther certainly
>> never mentions it. the only time he mentions 'good jews' is when they
>> have converted. otherwise he wants them dead.
>
>
>posts, I never used that term.
>
>
>> >as such, ethnic or otherwise. He was, however fixated on correct belief,
>> >and so if he attacked "the Jews", as he did, it would have been because
>> >they were, in their beliefs, minions of Satan, not because they were of a
>> >different physiognomy or colour.
>>
>> im not sure how that differs from antijudaism. and he didnt 'attack'
>> the jews...he called for their destruction or expulsion
>
>
Oh I see, and the Krystallnacht was not an attack against Jews, just their
Synagogues. Your're a fool. Sorry.
>
>
>> thats quite a difference john.
>>
>> >
>> >Luther also had some nasty attitudes to challenges to authority, that sit
>> >uneasily in one who did exactly that, in the way he approached the
>> >Peasant's Rebellion in, what, 1525? Basically IIRC the Christian Prince
>is
>> >exhorted to smash, stab and slay these rebels, and of course that's just
>> >what they did.
>>
>> and thats what he advocated christians do to jews. nowhere does he
>> accept judaism. nowhere does he even allow that it exist. nowhere does
>> he allow jews have civil rights. he wants nothing from jews except
>> their disappearance.
>
>
>-How 'bout their conversion? Or did you conveniently forget those quotes
>too?
Oh I see. Converting the Jews is not the same as destroying them..? Hmm.
Sort of like the Christians who wouldn't give up the Jewish orphans they took
in. Guess they decided to finish what Hitler couldn't...
Bigdakine
>Date: 4/10/00 8:59 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <wilkins-26F553...@news.unimelb.edu.au>
> |>as such, ethnic or otherwise. He was, however fixated on correct belief,
> |>and so if he attacked "the Jews", as he did, it would have been because
> |>they were, in their beliefs, minions of Satan, not because they were of a
> |>different physiognomy or colour.
> |
> |im not sure how that differs from antijudaism. and he didnt 'attack'
> |the jews...he called for their destruction or expulsion
> |
>
>vague to be unhelpful and open to antisemitic construals.
I don't think anyone construed your remarks as antisemetic. I don't think they
were correct but thats another story.
>
>I want to say this:
>
>1. Luther was opposed to a theology/religion/culture, not a biology
Mapi was making the argument that Luther hated only the Rabbis, not the Jews.
>
>2. Luther didn't distinguish between biology and culture, etc, as nobody
>did in those days.
>
Well given in those days, that biology was who was your mommy and daddy was, I
don't see that your distinction is meaningful.
>Hence, Luther's undoubted antisemiticsm is *motivated* by cultural
>xenophobia rather than biological racism.
For Luther there was no distinguishing the two as you noted above. I think this
is hair splitting. Although not as much so Mapi's hair splitting.
It boils down in practice to the
>same thing (as the anti-Jewish pogrom granddaddy of them all in Richard
>Lionheart's England also did), but there's a distinction to be made.
I disagree.
>
>The so-called "talmudic judaism" is Mapi's vague way of making this point.
I don't think he was making the point you think he is. Mapi was claiming that
Luther's wrath was directed against the Rabbinate, not the rank and file Jew,
so to speak...
>Whether Talmudic studies were in vogue in the early Reformation period in
>Germany is beyond my knowledge.
The Talmud had already undergone two major codifications, the first by Rashi
and the second by Maimonides which preceeded Luther by 200 years.
I thought something like the Talmud was
>around then, but I am probably wrong. Will Pratt, do you know?
Yes, Maimonides called it the Mishnah Torah
Mapi32
(uh-oh, now I'm gonna get it)
More below:
"Bigdakine" <bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip> wrote in message
news:20000411044905...@ng-md1.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: the Racist Roots of Evolution.
> >From: "Mapi32" mapno...@home.com
> >Date: 4/10/00 7:42 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
> >Message-id: <eXyI4.115662$Tn4.7...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>
> >
> >
> ><wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message news:38f2aa8e...@news.ptd.net...
> >-YOU are the ONLY one who used the term 'talmudic judaism'....reread your
> >posts, I never used that term.
> >
> >
> >> Luther was rarely against any people
> >> >as such, ethnic or otherwise. He was, however fixated on correct
belief,
> >> >and so if he attacked "the Jews", as he did, it would have been
because
> >> >they were, in their beliefs, minions of Satan, not because they were
of a
> >> >different physiognomy or colour.
> >>
> >> im not sure how that differs from antijudaism. and he didnt 'attack'
> >> the jews...he called for their destruction or expulsion
> >
> >
> >-Wrong again, he called for the destruction of their synagogues.
>
> Oh I see, and the Krystallnacht was not an attack against Jews, just their
> Synagogues. Your're a fool. Sorry.
~What was that?....Was that you using ad hominems again??
> >> thats quite a difference john.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Luther also had some nasty attitudes to challenges to authority, that
sit
> >> >uneasily in one who did exactly that, in the way he approached the
> >> >Peasant's Rebellion in, what, 1525? Basically IIRC the Christian
Prince
> >is
> >> >exhorted to smash, stab and slay these rebels, and of course that's
just
> >> >what they did.
> >>
> >> and thats what he advocated christians do to jews. nowhere does he
> >> accept judaism. nowhere does he even allow that it exist. nowhere does
> >> he allow jews have civil rights. he wants nothing from jews except
> >> their disappearance.
> >
> >
> >-How 'bout their conversion? Or did you conveniently forget those quotes
> >too?
>
> Oh I see. Converting the Jews is not the same as destroying them..? Hmm.
~Depends on the context. Definatly NOT so in this case. BTW, are you a
doctor of tectonics or Judaism? (the point being: STAY OUT DISCUSSIONS OF
WHAT YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT)
>
> Sort of like the Christians who wouldn't give up the Jewish orphans they
took
> in. Guess they decided to finish what Hitler couldn't...
~??? I haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.
<snip .sig>
~Matthias
"To err is human, to moo, bovine" -Unknown Poster
Bartman
American Patriot <ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8csbhd$i9e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Bartman <bartm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <8co42i$57j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > American Patriot <ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some
> evidence.
> > > Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny that
> > > Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the
> > > body of the book itself:
> > >
> > > "At some future period (Darwin writes), 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 the baboon, instead of
> > > as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles
> > > Darwin,
> > > The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p.
> > > 178).
> > >
> > > So the line between human and his nearest relatives falls
> > > somewhere
> > > between the Negro and the Gorilla, huh? Nothing racist there.
> > > Nosiree. Strictly science.
> > >
> > > Terry
> > >
> > > --
> > > 'Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed
> the
> > > glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to
> corruptible
> > > man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things'
> > > Saint Paul
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > Before you buy.
> > >
> > Only conscious beings can be rascist. Theories are abstract
concepts.
> > They can either be true or false.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Bartman
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
> >
> >
>
> First - love your handle!
>
> Second - how about the theory that the superman could be bred by
> exterminating all those with inferior genes? How about the theory
> that the problems in germany were brought about by the Jewish blood,
> so they all had to be killed? Or, for that matter, how about the
> theory that the white Europeans are the TRUE Jews, and those now
> claiming to be Jewish need to be exterminated (CI movement in the
> states)? Or how about the theory that the Blacks are the cause of
> all our problems, so we need to exterminate them (KKK, others).
All false theories. Until someone comes up with irefutable evidence to
back these claims we can consider them the wishfull thinking of
disturbed and frustrated people.
> I would be more inclined to contend, Bartman, that racism itself is
> ALWAYS part of a theory, a belief, rather than being part of an
> individual.
The above theories came from racist people, not from any scientific,
testable theory. They didn't bother to investigate or prove their
claim, because they are not interested in objective truth but in
perpetuating their erroneous beliefs. Not unlike creationists.
Say you're right, say Darwin was a racist (which shouldn't really
surprise us, since he lived in a time when racism was common). Does
that falsify his claims, does that nullify the overwhelming evidence
supporting evolution?
No, all it does is show that even intelligent people can have the wrong
beliefs. Belief and proven theory are two different things.
It's not because Pythagoras may have believed in Greek Mythology that
A²+B² does not equal C²
Regards,
Bartman
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Bigdakine
>Message-id: <fdAI4.116090$Tn4.7...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>
>
><wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message news:38f2a8f1...@news.ptd.net...
>> On 11 Apr 2000 00:07:30 -0400, "Mapi32" <mapno...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Thank you for this link!! It is appriciated, as it has saved me from
>> >digging through my book collection.
>>
>>
>> >>You are quite wrong...Luther hated Talmudist/Orthodox religion, NOT the
>> >>Jewish race.
>>
>> since
>>
>> 1. 'talmudist' judaism doesnt exist
>
>~Of course you have proof of this, right? In peer reviewed journals?
I have seen that expression used. I prefer Rabbinic Judaism myself.
>
>> 2. orthodox judaism did not exist at the time of luther
>
>~Again, no proof. BTW Orthodox judaism IS talmudic.
The point is that there was no other kind.
>
>> it's obvious you havent a clue as to what you're talking about...
>
>~Really? Anyone reading Luther's works with an unbiased mind would conclude
>differently.
Really?
Mapi32
> >Subject: Re: the Racist Roots of Evolution.
> >From: "Mapi32" mapno...@home.com
> >Date: 4/10/00 9:10 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
> >Message-id: <fdAI4.116090$Tn4.7...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>
> >
> ><wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message news:38f2a8f1...@news.ptd.net...
> >> On 11 Apr 2000 00:07:30 -0400, "Mapi32" <mapno...@home.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Thank you for this link!! It is appriciated, as it has saved me from
> >> >digging through my book collection.
> >>
> >> incidentally here's what you originally wrote:
> >>
> >> >>You are quite wrong...Luther hated Talmudist/Orthodox religion, NOT
the
> >> >>Jewish race.
> >>
> >> since
> >>
> >> 1. 'talmudist' judaism doesnt exist
> >
> >~Of course you have proof of this, right? In peer reviewed journals?
>
> I have seen that expression used. I prefer Rabbinic Judaism myself.
>
> >
> >> 2. orthodox judaism did not exist at the time of luther
> >
> >~Again, no proof. BTW Orthodox judaism IS talmudic.
>
> The point is that there was no other kind.
~Yet again showing your ignorance. Ever heard of Sadducees??
> >> it's obvious you havent a clue as to what you're talking about...
> >
> >~Really? Anyone reading Luther's works with an unbiased mind would
conclude
> >differently.
>
> Really?
~Your mind is biased, yes?
> Stuart
> Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
> Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
> "To err is human, but to really foul things up
> requires a creationist"
~Matthias
"More human than human."
Bigdakine
>Date: 4/10/00 11:05 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <20000411050436...@ng-md1.aol.com>
>
>>Subject: Re: the Racist Roots of Evolution.
>>Date: 4/10/00 8:59 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>>Message-id: <wilkins-26F553...@news.unimelb.edu.au>
>>
>>In article <38f2aa8e...@news.ptd.net>, wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>>
>> |wrote:
>> |
>> |>In article <OxxI4.115395$Tn4.7...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>, "Mapi32"
>> |><mapno...@home.com> wrote:
>> |>
>>Whether Talmudic studies were in vogue in the early Reformation period in
>>Germany is beyond my knowledge.
>
>The Talmud had already undergone two major codifications, the first by Rashi
>and the second by Maimonides which preceeded Luther by 200 years.
Correction, Rashi wrote the Talmud in Hebrew, the codifications were first by
Alfasi and then Maimonides and later by Joseph Caro.
>
>
> I thought something like the Talmud was
>>around then, but I am probably wrong. Will Pratt, do you know?
>
>Yes, Maimonides called it the Mishnah Torah
The Talmud had been around for almost 900 years by the time of Luther.
Bigdakine
>Date: 4/10/00 11:04 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <LUBI4.116153$Tn4.7...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>
>
>If that was sense, I'm glad I'm ignorant.
>(uh-oh, now I'm gonna get it)
>
>More below:
>
>
>> >Subject: Re: the Racist Roots of Evolution.
>> >Date: 4/10/00 7:42 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <eXyI4.115662$Tn4.7...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>
>> >
>> >
>> ><wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message news:38f2aa8e...@news.ptd.net...
>> >> On 11 Apr 2000 00:27:53 -0400, John Wilkins <wil...@wehi.edu.au>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <OxxI4.115395$Tn4.7...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>, "Mapi32"
>> >> ><mapno...@home.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>from
>> >> > |digging through my book collection.
>> >> > |
Me? Only when richly deserved...
>
>
>> >> thats quite a difference john.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Luther also had some nasty attitudes to challenges to authority, that
>sit
>> >> >uneasily in one who did exactly that, in the way he approached the
>> >> >Peasant's Rebellion in, what, 1525? Basically IIRC the Christian
>Prince
>> >is
>> >> >exhorted to smash, stab and slay these rebels, and of course that's
>just
>> >> >what they did.
>> >>
>> >> and thats what he advocated christians do to jews. nowhere does he
>> >> accept judaism. nowhere does he even allow that it exist. nowhere does
>> >> he allow jews have civil rights. he wants nothing from jews except
>> >> their disappearance.
>> >
>> >
>> >-How 'bout their conversion? Or did you conveniently forget those quotes
>> >too?
>>
>> Oh I see. Converting the Jews is not the same as destroying them..? Hmm.
>
>
>~Depends on the context. Definatly NOT so in this case. BTW, are you a
>doctor of tectonics or Judaism?
As far as you're concerned, both.. I'll wager that I've studied Judaism longer
then you've been alive.
(the point being: STAY OUT DISCUSSIONS OF
>WHAT YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT)
>
Sorry, but don't expect to get past me with sophistry.
>>
>> Sort of like the Christians who wouldn't give up the Jewish orphans they
>took
>> in. Guess they decided to finish what Hitler couldn't...
>
>~??? I haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.
No I suppose not.
Joe_SixPack
I cannot believe you cannot see that advocating a forced conversion of
the Jews (under penalty of death for non-compliance), as Luther did, is
about as anti-semitic as you can get. Just because you don't believe
that it was their race that mattered, only their religion, doesn't in
anyway justify Luther's views. Race is a poorly defined term anyway.
The point is that Luther hated the Jewish beliefs and blamed living
people who followed those beliefs for the death of the Christian savior
(which if you think about it is a ridiculous position even if it were
true - how would Jesus supposably die for the sins of Man if he was
never killed?). In today's world Luther would be considered no better
than your average Klansmen.
Cheers (unless you actually hold these ridiculous anti-semitic opinions
- if you do then - Fuck Off and Die!)
In article <eXyI4.115662$Tn4.7...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>,
> > thats quite a difference john.
> >
> > >
> > >Luther also had some nasty attitudes to challenges to authority,
that sit
> > >uneasily in one who did exactly that, in the way he approached the
> > >Peasant's Rebellion in, what, 1525? Basically IIRC the Christian
Prince
> is
> > >exhorted to smash, stab and slay these rebels, and of course
that's just
> > >what they did.
> >
> > and thats what he advocated christians do to jews. nowhere does he
> > accept judaism. nowhere does he even allow that it exist. nowhere
does
> > he allow jews have civil rights. he wants nothing from jews except
> > their disappearance.
>
> -How 'bout their conversion? Or did you conveniently forget those
quotes
> too?
>
> ~Matthias
> "A truthful witness does not deceive, but a false witness pours out
lies.
> A mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easy to the
> discerning." -Proverbs 14:5-6
>
>
Richard A. Schumacher
if an idea is in the original holy writ, it must be accepted as
dogma forever. But science doesn't work that way. Darwin made
mistakes, just as did Newton and Einstein and all other scientists.
You've quoted one of those mistakes. The difference between science
and religion is that science is self-correcting: it eventually
recognizes its mistakes and replaces them with ideas nearer to the
truth.
Be sure to write again when your favorite religion has recognized
and corrected some of its mistakes. And drop the stupid pseudonym.
MW
"tweedyd" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote:
>
> American Patriot <ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8cotnq$vtm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <38ef...@news.desupernet.net>,
> > "tweedyd" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote:
> > His 'work' lent itself well to the furthering of this hateful
belief.
> > It gave a 'scientific' basis to peoples idiotic bigotry.
>
> People's bigotry does not need any basis to survive.
The bigotry of sane people does need a basis. And it is fair to say
that Darwin's observation of natural selection provides such a basis --
i.e, I will help those who are most similar to me, and I will
discriminate against those who are most different from me. Of course,
that was already happening -- the theory of natural selection just
provided a rational explanation.
> They will use whatever
> they can to support their personal hatred. Darwin is not responsable
for
> what misuses his theory is put to,
No, he's not.
> any more than the teachings of Christ are
> responable for the horrors of the Inquisition.
What exactly were the horrors of the Inquisition?
I'm not sure what "the horrors" were, but the Inquisition was an
example of the struggle for existence in action. Race against race.
"Limpieza de sangre" (purity of blood).
<stuff about Ham deleted>
> People who wanted to believe in racism used the bible to support
> their views as well.
Many have done this, indeed.
> > > Later evolutionary research proved that all human races are
> > biologically
> > > equal.
> >
> > Define 'biologically equal', if you would.
>
> Ok, the words are quite common, you might try a dictionary. The
phrase
> means that all humans are the same (that is what equal means) in all
their
> life processes (that is what biologically means). Science has found
that
> racial differences in humans are entirely superficial (that means not
> important).
Not true. Science has found many important differences among the
races, and the rate of discovery seems to be accelerating with the
apparent waning of the influence of the obscurantists (Franz Boas, for
example) who opposed the study of human anatomy and behavior in an
evolutionary context.
> The concept of evolution is in no way used (by scientists) to
> imply that any race is "better".
Not generally better, but better in certain regards. And, yes,
scientists are compiling overwhelming evidence of mean IQ differences
among the races.
> > > Changing social mores have led to the rejection of the concept of
> > > one race being superior to any other. The concept it still being
> > held onto,
> > > largely by right wing racist movements ( ironically many of them
call
> > > themselves "Patriots" ).
Right-wingers may accept the concept, but the concept was perfected by
those on the left and continues to reside primarily on that side of the
aisle.
> > No offense taken. Many idiot bigots call themselves 'evolutionists'
>
> I would submit that an understanding of evolution tends to go against
> bigotry. Evolutionary theory states we are all members of the same
species,
Yes.
> and that races are not important.
No. It does not state that, any more than its states that individuals
aren't important, families aren't important, or any other subgroup of
the species isn't important.
> > > Many of them use the Bible to support their
> > > racism.
> >
> > Instead of O of S, which is truly racist.
>
> Origin of Species is no more racist than plumbing.
That depends on how one defines "racist."
> Racism predates Darwin
> by centuries.
Longer than that.
MW
"Steven J." <sjt1957...@ntslink.net.invalid> wrote:
> I'm not sure what point American Patriot is making. Is it that
> Darwinism leads to racism? Then why is Steven J. Gould so
> fanatically anti-racist,
He is not anti-racist; he is against racism by certain groups. His
advocacy of "anti-racism" is actually part of the "racist" evolutionary
strategy of his own ethnic group.
> and why do his fellow darwinists never
> criticize him for this alleged deviation from darwinism?
Because he is a dishonest scientist. Actually, he's not really a
scientist, since his political agenda trumps any desire to search for
the truth.
> Is it
> that Darwinism grew out of racism? Then why did darwinism not
> arise in the slaveholding American south, rather than in a
> family of abolitionists? That Darwin believed in racism, and
> therefore darwinism contains racism as a key doctrine?
>
> The first point which must be made is that darwinism is not a
> religion, and Darwin's writings are not its sacred scripture.
> Modern darwinists reject Darwin's belief in the inheritance of
> aquired characteristics. They reject his belief in "blending
> inheritance." They reject his confusion of biological and
> cultural evolution, implied in the quote you selected. Modern
> darwinism consists of those ideas of Darwin which are in accord
> with scientific facts, supplemented by additional discoveries.
>
> Secondly, Darwin believed that blacks were less intelligent than
> whites. In this he was joined by nearly every white English
> speaker alive in his day.
And by most of today's evolutionary scientists, though some won't admit
it, at least not for public consumption.
> Darwinism was first believed by
> racists, as was 19th-century creationism, because no one else
> was available to believe it. If you want racist beliefs, try to
> find Carroll's 1900 book, "The Negro a Beast," a creationist
> tract which ranked whites, blacks, and apes as did Darwin, but
> put the dividing line between human and beast between whites and
> blacks. There was not a prominent creationist in Darwin's time
> who could not match Darwin racist quote for racist quote.
>
> Thirdly, darwinism is intrinsically hostile to racism in a way
> that creationism is not. Racism is essentialist, i.e. your race
> is a defining trait, and you share something important with
> every member of your race and with no member of any other race.
> Darwinism is antiessentialist -- there is no trait that every
> member of a given group has, and every non-member of that group
> lacks. Rather, darwinism has as its central tenet the idea that
> variation exists among the members of every race, and that the
> differences within each race exceed the average difference
> between two races. This is what provides the raw material for
> natural selection and evolution. This is why Wallace, who
> shared Darwin's beliefs about blacks (they were both white
> English speakers, after all), said that "the average Negro has
> lower intelligence than the average white man." Any ordinary
> racist would have just said, "the Negro is less intelligent than
> the white man," but Wallace's acceptance of natural selection
> from variation within groups forced him to acknowledge that some
> blacks HAD to be smarter than the average white man. No
> darwinist could, in good conscience, embrace the ideals of Jim
> Crow or the Nuremberg laws, which denied individual variation
> and treated "races" as unvarying kinds.
I disagree. The Nuernberg laws did not deny individual differences.
An accurate statement is that they did not take individual differences
into account.
Moreover, Darwin's antiessentialism, as you have described it, does not
seem inconsistent with the efforts of a group like the Germans (despite
broad genetic variation within the population) to band together to
oppose the evolutionary strategy of another group whose members'
genetic code -- though varying within that group -- still differed, on
average, from that of the average German.
It seems to me that Hitler was a Darwinist.
maff91
>In article <38f0...@news.desupernet.net>,
> "tweedyd" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote:
>>
>> American Patriot <ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> news:8cotnq$vtm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> > In article <38ef...@news.desupernet.net>,
>> > "tweedyd" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote:
>
>
>> > His 'work' lent itself well to the furthering of this hateful
>belief.
>> > It gave a 'scientific' basis to peoples idiotic bigotry.
>>
>> People's bigotry does not need any basis to survive.
>
>The bigotry of sane people does need a basis. And it is fair to say
>that Darwin's observation of natural selection provides such a basis --
>i.e, I will help those who are most similar to me, and I will
>discriminate against those who are most different from me. Of course,
>that was already happening -- the theory of natural selection just
>provided a rational explanation.
"My correspondent thinks with Mr. Jefferson, that Jehovah has no
attributes that will harmonize with slavery; and that all men are born
free and equal. Now, I say let him throw away his Bible as Mr.
Jefferson did his and then they will be fit companions. But never
disgrace the Bible by making Mr. Jefferson its expounder, nor
Mr. Jefferson by deriving his sentiments from it. Mr. Jefferson did
not bow to the authority of the Bible, and on this subject I do not
bow to him."
[Rev. Thornton Stringfellow, D.D., in "Scriptural View of Slavery," a
work showing that the Bible sanctions slavery, from John E. Remsburg,
"Six Historic Americans. Chapter 2: Thomas Jefferson"]
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_2.html
"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy
Scriptures, both by precept and example."
[Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina]
"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many
regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral."
[Rev. Alexander Campbell]
"The extracts from Holy Writ unequivocally assert the right of
property in slaves."
[Rev. E.D. Simms, professor, Randolph-Macon College]
"I draw my warrant from the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments
to hold the slave in bondage."
[Rev. Thomas Witherspoon, Presbyterian, of Alabama]
"In another area of human rights, many Christian clergymen advocated
slavery. Historian Larry Hise notes in his book 'Pro-Slavery' that
ministers 'wrote almost half of all defenses of slavery published in
America.' He lists 275 men of the cloth who used the Bible to prove
that white people were entitled to own black people as work animals."
[James A. Haught, 'Holy Horrors']
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879755784/
"The delegates of the annual conference are decidedly opposed to
modern abolitionism, and wholly disclaim any right, wish, or intention
to interfere in the civil and political relation between master and
slave in the slave-holding states of the union."
[Methodist Episcopal Church, Statement of the General Conference,
Cincinnati, May 1836]
Slavery, segregation and the Bible
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=439145525
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=540448767
http://www.dovelink.com/News/archives/Feb1999/Feb161999.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav.htm
http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/History/U_S__History/Slavery/
http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/History/By_Subject/Slavery/Atlantic_Slave_Trade/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Slavery/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Segregation/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Lynching/
Hitler and 1,700 years of Christian anti-semitism
http://cnn.co.uk/WORLD/9803/16/vatican.holocaust/index.html
http://www.hearnow.org/caljp.htm
http://www.flash.net/~twinkle/psycho/DARK/recreational/luther.html
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Holocaust%2C%20Jewish%20%281939-1945%29/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Jews/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Holocaust/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Christianity%20and%20antisemitism/
Murder of Hypatia and the burning of the Great Library at Alexandria
http://www.weber.edu/physics/carroll/cosmos.htm
http://hypatia.dcs.qmw.ac.uk/
http://www.geocities.com/~pandoracvi/
http://www.exovedate.com/ancient_timeline_four.html
http://cosmopolis.com/people/hypatia.html
http://cosmopolis.com/alexandria/hypatia-bio-suda.html
http://cosmopolis.com/alexandria/hypatia-bio-john.html
http://kalypso.cybercom.net/~hypatia/hypatia.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Gibbon%2C%20Edward%2C%201737-1794/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Empire%2C%2030%20B.C.-476%20A.D/
http://www.polyamory.org/~howard/Hypatia/books.html
Constantine et al
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5195/index.html
Crusades, Inquisition
http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Regions/Europe/Arts_and_Humanities/Humanities/History/By_Time_Period/Middle_Ages/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Crusades/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Medieval/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Middle%20Ages/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Medieval%20World%20History%20%28Circa%20450%20-%20Circa%201450%29/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Inquisition/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Church%20History%20-%20Catholic/
Black Death
http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Regions/Europe/Arts_and_Humanities/Humanities/History/By_Time_Period/Renaissance/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Black%20death/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Civilization%2C%20Medieval/
A Distant Mirror : The Calamitous 14th Century by Barbara W. Tuchman
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345349571/
Renaissance
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Renaissance/
Reformation
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Reformation/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Middle%20Ages%2C%20600-1500/
Persecution of Galileo
http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Astronomy/Astronomers/Galilei__Galileo__1564_1642_/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Galilei%2C%20Galileo%2C/
Murder of Giodarno Bruno
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_kessler/giordano_bruno.html
http://www.aracnet.com/~atheism/tochist.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Author=Bruno%2C%20Giordano/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Bruno%2C%20Giordano%2C/
Italian philosopher Lucilio Vanini tortured and burnt alive
http://www.turnpike.net/~mscott/sthom1.htm
http://www.gocreate.com/History/ra17.htm
http://www.atheism.org/library/historical/unknown/three_impostors.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0962531901/
Criminal activities by various Popes
http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tmanc.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Columbus%2C%20Christopher/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Conquest%2C%201522-1548/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Cortes%2C%20Hernan%2C/
Prelude to genocide of Native Americans and others
http://www.omen.com.au/~staffy/cook.html
http://www.sru.edu/depts/artsci/ges/lamerica/treaty.htm
http://www.liverpool.k12.ny.us/Whacked/IntranetCurr/SocialStudies/AmazonAdventure/tordesillas.htm
http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/History/By_Subject/Exploration/Columbus__Christopher__1451_1506_/
http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Countries/Mexico/Social_Science/Archaeology/Aztec/
http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Cultures_and_Groups/Cultures/Mayan/
http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Regions/Caribbean/
http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Regions/South_America/Social_Science/Anthropology_and_Archaeology/Archaeology/Inca/
http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Cultures_and_Groups/Cultures/American__United_States_/Native_American/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Indians%20of%20Mexico/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Aztecs/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Ethnic%20-%20Native%20American/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Carib%20Indians/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Black%20Carib%20Indians/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Indians%20of%20North%20America/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Indians/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Incas/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Indians%20of%20South%20America/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Pizarro%2C%20Francisco%2C/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Cortes%2C%20Hernan%2C/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Jesuits/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Church%20History%20-%20Catholic/
The Age of Enlightenment
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/enlightenment.html
http://tlc.ai.org/enlight.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Enlightenment/
Salem Witch trials
http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/History/U_S__History/Colonial_America/Salem_Witch_Trials/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Trials%20%28Witchcraft%29/
Witch burnings
http://www.silvermoon.net/catala/burning/times.htm
http://www.celticcrow.com/basics/burning.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Witchcraft/
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=488923691
The Protestant inquisition
http://www.bumler.com/~erasmus/RAZ247.HTM
Religious hate
http://www.religioustolerance.org/negative.htm
The "Burning Times Award"
http://www.religioustolerance.org/burn_awd.htm
Religiously-based civil unrest and warfare
http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm
Cults
http://www.religioustolerance.org/cultmenu.htm
Hot religious topics
http://www.religioustolerance.org/conflict.htm
Other Important Essays
http://www.religioustolerance.org/other_es.htm
Evolution of Religion
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=481072529
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/Cullen.html
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=478883107
http://www.godpart.com/
[...]
*****************************************************
Unforgettable Thomas Paine:
"Society in every state is a blessing, but
government, even in its best state, is but a
necessary evil, in its worst state
an intolerable one."
"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind,
tyranny in religion is the Worst"
"All national institutions of churches, whether
Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no
other than human inventions, set up to terrify
and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and
profit."
"He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty, he establishes
a precedent that will reach to himself"
"A bad cause will ever be supported by
bad means and bad men."
"Moderation in temper is always a virtue;
but moderation in principle is always a
vice."
"War involves in its progress such a train
of unforeseen and unsupposed circumstances
that no human wisdom can calculate its end.
It has but one thing certain and that is to
increase taxes."
"My country is the world"
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/intro.html
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.05/paine.html
*****************************************************
Ken Cox
> Is it just me, or does anyone else visualize a flag waving in the
> background whenever AP posts? Of course, the flag has this funny
> looking black spider on it.
Half a spider. Spiders have eight legs.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> The entire book is directed against Talmudic Jews, NOT racial Jews.
Pity Luther couldn't have been a bit more precise. In the translation
at the link, he just says "Jews". Apparently, though, from what you're
saying, it's OK to be descended from Jews, as long as you don't follow
their religion?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Bigdakine
>Message-id: <ciCI4.116155$Tn4.7...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>
>
>"Bigdakine" <bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip> wrote in message
>> >Message-id: <fdAI4.116090$Tn4.7...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>
>> >
>> ><wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message news:38f2a8f1...@news.ptd.net...
>> >> On 11 Apr 2000 00:07:30 -0400, "Mapi32" <mapno...@home.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Thank you for this link!! It is appriciated, as it has saved me from
>> >> >digging through my book collection.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >>You are quite wrong...Luther hated Talmudist/Orthodox religion, NOT
>the
>> >> >>Jewish race.
>> >>
>> >> since
>> >>
>> >> 1. 'talmudist' judaism doesnt exist
>> >
>> >~Of course you have proof of this, right? In peer reviewed journals?
>>
>> I have seen that expression used. I prefer Rabbinic Judaism myself.
>>
>> >
>> >> 2. orthodox judaism did not exist at the time of luther
>> >
>> >~Again, no proof. BTW Orthodox judaism IS talmudic.
>>
>> The point is that there was no other kind.
>
>
>~Yet again showing your ignorance. Ever heard of Sadducees??
The Sadducees were extinct by the time of Luther. They dissapeared after Judea
fell to the Romans..
Get a history book.
>
>
>> >> it's obvious you havent a clue as to what you're talking about...
>> >
>> >~Really? Anyone reading Luther's works with an unbiased mind would
>conclude
>> >differently.
>>
>> Really?
>
>
>~Your mind is biased, yes?
Not nearly as much so as yours..
Stuart
>
>
>> Stuart
>> Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
>> Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
>> "To err is human, but to really foul things up
>> requires a creationist"
>
>
>~Matthias
>"More human than human."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Mitchell Coffey
> > >Message-id: <O0vI4.114737$Tn4.7...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>
> > >
> > >You are quite wrong...Luther hated Talmudist/Orthodox religion,
NOT the
> > >Jewish race.
> >
>
>-Oh? I suppose you conveniently forgot all the passages in the Talmud
>calling for the death of Christians. Or the passages where the
>Gentiles are referred to as animals? Racisim? Nah.
Of course, any such passages are, or would be, religious bigotry,
though not racism. Can you, by the way, quote any of these passages,
from an authentic source?
I don't see your point. Is there some continuity between these
putative talmudic anti-Christian diatribes and modern anti-Christian
pogroms? How could this justify Luther's calling for the killing of
Jews?
But wait - are you aware that the Talmud consists of critical
arguments, among numerous authors, often in bitter disagreement, often
in contradiction? Are you aware that Jews are in no way required to
accept all the opinions expressed in the Talmud - an impossibility,
anyway, as many contradict? Or did Luther not know this and jump the
gun?
Is you point that because some of the thousand year-old passages within
the Talmud express, you claim, anti-Christian prejudices it was moral
for Luther to call for violent action against Jews?
Exactly what threat did the highly oppressed Jews in Luther's Germany
project to anybody?
Mitchell Coffey
_____________________________________________________
"Nostalgia is the handmaiden of fascism"
- Mary Gordon
Bigdakine
>Date: 4/11/00 9:00 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <20000411150021...@ng-fs1.aol.com>>>Date: 4/10/00 11:31 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>>Message-id: <ciCI4.116155$Tn4.7...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>
>>
>>"Bigdakine" <bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip> wrote in message
>>> >Message-id: <fdAI4.116090$Tn4.7...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>
>>> >
>>> ><wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message news:38f2a8f1...@news.ptd.net...
>>> >> On 11 Apr 2000 00:07:30 -0400, "Mapi32" <mapno...@home.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >Thank you for this link!! It is appriciated, as it has saved me from
>>> >> >digging through my book collection.
>>> >>
>>> >> incidentally here's what you originally wrote:
>>> >>
>>the
>>> >> >>Jewish race.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> 1. 'talmudist' judaism doesnt exist
>>> >
>>> >~Of course you have proof of this, right? In peer reviewed journals?
>>>
>>> I have seen that expression used. I prefer Rabbinic Judaism myself.
>>>
>>> >
>>> >> 2. orthodox judaism did not exist at the time of luther
>>> >
>>> >~Again, no proof. BTW Orthodox judaism IS talmudic.
>>>
>>> The point is that there was no other kind.
>>
>>
>>~Yet again showing your ignorance. Ever heard of Sadducees??
>
>The Sadducees were extinct by the time of Luther. They dissapeared after
>Judea
>fell to the Romans..
More specifically their decline began with the fall of the Second Temple...
Stuart
David Johnston
>
> On 10 Apr 2000 21:15:24 -0400, "Mapi32" <mapno...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >You are quite wrong...Luther hated Talmudist/Orthodox religion, NOT the
> >Jewish race.
>
> to decide for themselves, luther's hatred of judaism can be read, in a
> translation of his own words at:
>
> http://home.flash.net/~twinkle/psycho/DARK/recreational/luther.html
>
> he makes no distinction between orthodoxy and other forms of judaism.
I believe Mapi32 means that Luther only hated jews, not ex-jews.
Mitchell Coffey
"Landis D. Ragon" <Landis...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Mitchell Coffey <cof...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <8cotnq$vtm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > American Patriot <ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> In article <38ef...@news.desupernet.net>,
> >> "tweedyd" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > American Patriot <ttra...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >> > > I have been challenged to prove this claim, so here is some
> >> evidence.
> >> > > Of course, the subtitle of 'origins' is racist, but some deny
that
> >> > > Darwin was speaking of human races there, so let's go into the
> >body
> >> of
> >> > > the book itself:
> >> > >
> >> > > "At some future period (Darwin writes), not very distant as
> >[snip]
> >
> >>
> >> Instead of O of S, which is truly racist.
> >
> >
> >The quote you are using is not from the "Origin of the Species".
>
> Is it just me, or does anyone else visualize a flag waving in the
> background whenever AP posts? Of course, the flag has this funny
> looking black spider on it.
>
> Landis Ragon (dS = dq/T)
[snip]
What follows is a true story. A couple of years ago my daughter, then
six, got the "The Sound of Music" videotape as a present. My son, then
three, watched it with us. After the Germans take over Austria there's
a scene in which the guys my son, bless him, called "the Nancys" go
goose stepping about in their Goth costumes under big, long banners
with swastikas at the top. So my three year-old asks, "Why do the
spiders on their flags have only four legs?
In AP's defense, I don't think he's an overt bigot, but a guy willfully
ignorant of the racist history of his particular Christian flavor,
wishes to remain so, and doesn't care a wit about racism, but thinks he
can use it to beat up on evolutionists - who are overwhelmingly less
prejudice than white Protestant fundamentalists!
As for citing a quote minded (by someone else?) from _Descent of Man_
to prove that the subtitle of _Origin of the Species_ is racist...
well, that's false witness. AP's Hell fodder, for sure.
Mark Isaak
Mapi32 <mapno...@home.com> wrote:
>Now then, I say that you took Luther out of context, in the same way AmPat
>took Darwin out of context....you haven't read The Jews And Their Lies, have
>you?
>
Unless you want to claim that religious bigotry is more moral than racial
bigotry, your argument is moot.
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"My determination is not to remain stubbornly with my ideas but
I'll leave them and go over to others as soon as I am shown
plausible reason which I can grasp." - Antony Leeuwenhoek
Mitchell Coffey
MW <mw4...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <38f40438...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com>,
> "Steven J." <sjt1957...@ntslink.net.invalid> wrote:
> > I'm not sure what point American Patriot is making. Is it that
> > Darwinism leads to racism? Then why is Steven J. Gould so
> > fanatically anti-racist,
>
> He is not anti-racist; he is against racism by certain groups.
>His advocacy of "anti-racism" is actually part of the "racist"
>evolutionary strategy of his own ethnic group.
Evidence?
> > and why do his fellow darwinists never
> > criticize him for this alleged deviation from darwinism?
>
> Because he is a dishonest scientist. Actually, he's not really a
> scientist, since his political agenda trumps any desire to search for
> the truth.
Evidence?
>
> > Is it
> > that Darwinism grew out of racism? Then why did darwinism not
> > arise in the slaveholding American south, rather than in a
> > family of abolitionists?
No response?
[snip]
> >
> > Secondly, Darwin believed that blacks were less intelligent than
> > whites. In this he was joined by nearly every white English
> > speaker alive in his day.
>
> And by most of today's evolutionary scientists, though some won't
> admit it, at least not for public consumption.
Evidence?
[snip]
> > No darwinist could, in good conscience, embrace the ideals of Jim
> > Crow or the Nuremberg laws, which denied individual variation
> > and treated "races" as unvarying kinds.
>
> I disagree. The Nuernberg laws did not deny individual differences.
> An accurate statement is that they did not take individual differences
> into account.
I see. Laws against marrage and sex between Jews and non-Jews, exactly
which individual differences did they not take into accout?
[snip]
> It seems to me that Hitler was a Darwinist.
Then you're unfamilar with both Hitler and Darwin.
More importantly, you've written a lot that needs substantiation.
Mitchell Coffey
_______________________________________________________
"The future belongs to color photograpy."
- Adolf Hitler
Mitchell Coffey
MW <mw4...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <38f0...@news.desupernet.net>,
> "tweedyd" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote:
[snip]
> > > > Changing social mores have led to the rejection of the concept
of
> > > > one race being superior to any other. The concept it still
being
> > > held onto,
> > > > largely by right wing racist movements ( ironically many of them
> call
> > > > themselves "Patriots" ).
>
> Right-wingers may accept the concept, but the concept was perfected by
> those on the left and continues to reside primarily on that side of
> the aisle.
Are you going to provide evidence for these claims?
Mitchell Coffey
_____________________________________________________
"Nostalgia is the handmaiden of fascism"
- Mary Gordon
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.