Darwin inspired Hitler: Lies they teach in Texas

[jspa...@linuxquestions.net]

From the article:
-----------------------------------
When Joshua Bass, an engineer, sent his son to iSchool High, a Houston charter school, he was expecting a solid college preparation, including the chance to study some college courses before leaving high school. Instead, the Basses were shocked when their son came home from the taxpayer-funded school with apparently religiously motivated anti-science books.

One of these books blamed Darwin’s theory of evolution for the Holocaust:

[Hitler] has written that the Aryan (German) race would be the leader in all human progress. To accomplish that goal, all “lower races” should either be enslaved or eliminated. Apparently the theory of evolution and its “survival of the fittest” philosophy had taken root in Hitler’s warped mind.

For Joshua, attacks on science in the classroom were unacceptable. Joshua began to research ResponsiveEd, the curriculum used at iSchool High. It emerged that ResponsiveEd was founded by Donald R. Howard, former owner of ACE (Accelerated Christian Education). ACE is a fundamentalist curriculum that teaches young-Earth creationism as fact. Last year it hit headlines because one of its high school science books taught that the Loch Ness Monster was real, and that this was evidence against evolution.
------------------------------------

Read it at http://www.salon.com/2013/10/25/christian_textbooks_darwin_inspired_hitler/



J. Spaceman

[Kalkidas]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:55:29 -0700 (PDT), jspa...@linuxquestions.net
wrote:

Uh oh. Look's like Hector Avalos, boy detective, has been at it again!

[Boikat]

Do you have a problem with someone suspecting something was wrong and investigating? Or do you think students should shut up and drink the cool-aid?

Boikat

[Ray Martinez]

What "cool-aid"?

Ray

[Boikat]

On Saturday, October 26, 2013 12:06:42 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Saturday, October 26, 2013 9:47:09 AM UTC-7, Boikat wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, October 26, 2013 11:01:11 AM UTC-5, Kalkidas wrote:

<snip>

> >
>
> > > Uh oh. Look's like Hector Avalos, boy detective, has been at it again!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Do you have a problem with someone suspecting something was wrong and investigating? Or do you think students should shut up and drink the cool-aid?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Boikat
>
>
>
> What "cool-aid"?
>

You know damn good and well what "cool-aid" I am talking about. But if you want to play stupid, please, by all means, carry on. After all, why change
now?

BTW, could you please publish your book? I;m running a little low on TP.

Boikat

[Ray Martinez]

Honest scholars have always known that Darwinism inspired the Holocaust. While Darwinists were busy ratifying natural selection as the main agent in the 1940s, Hitler walked the walk and was in the field selecting his perceived enemies for extinction.

Empowered by the so called "fact of evolution" and the falsity of Genesis and Divine inspiration, the Nazi war machine acted as if no God exists, murdering tens of millions in cold blood.

Most Evolutionists, of course, suppress and deny the facts seen above, who could blame them? But unpopular truth is still truth despite the fact that the Evolutionists control Education, the Courts, and the Microphone. There will always be people who will preserve truth no matter how unpopular and unpleasant.

Ray (anti-evolutionist)

[Boikat]

On Saturday, October 26, 2013 12:29:01 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Friday, October 25, 2013 7:55:29 PM UTC-7, jspa...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
>

>
>
> Honest scholars have always known that Darwinism inspired the Holocaust.

One cup of cool-aid.

> While Darwinists were busy ratifying natural selection as the main agent in the 1940s, Hitler walked the walk and was in the field selecting his perceived enemies for extinction.
>

Two cups of cool-aid.

>
>
> Empowered by the so called "fact of evolution" and the falsity of Genesis and Divine inspiration, the Nazi war machine acted as if no God exists, murdering tens of millions in cold blood.

Three cups of cool-aid.

>
>
>
> Most Evolutionists, of course, suppress and deny the facts seen above,

Your words contained no facts, just accusations and falsehoods. No "honest scholars" have ever shown the ToE to be Hitler's inspiration, or justification, for his actions.

> who could blame them? But unpopular truth is still truth despite the fact that the Evolutionists control Education, the Courts, and the Microphone. There will always be people who will preserve truth no matter how unpopular and unpleasant.

Truth? You can't handle the truth. All you want to do is keep serving cool-aid.

>
>
> Ray (anti-evolutionist)

You mean "anti-realist".

Boikat

[chris thompson]

On Saturday, October 26, 2013 1:22:06 PM UTC-4, Boikat wrote:
> On Saturday, October 26, 2013 12:06:42 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, October 26, 2013 9:47:09 AM UTC-7, Boikat wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Saturday, October 26, 2013 11:01:11 AM UTC-5, Kalkidas wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Uh oh. Look's like Hector Avalos, boy detective, has been at it again!
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Do you have a problem with someone suspecting something was wrong and investigating? Or do you think students should shut up and drink the cool-aid?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Boikat
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > What "cool-aid"?
>
> >
>
>
>
> You know damn good and well what "cool-aid" I am talking about. But if you want to play stupid, please, by all means, carry on. After all, why change
>
> now?
>
>

What is this "play" stupid of which you write?

Chris

[Desertphile]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:55:29 -0700 (PDT), jspa...@linuxquestions.net
wrote:

> Darwin inspired Hitler: Lies they teach in Texas

Actually Martin Luther inspired Hitler.

--
Mass shootings are the price we must pay to prop up
America's sagging manhood.

[Klaus Hellnick]

On 10/26/2013 12:29 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Friday, October 25, 2013 7:55:29 PM UTC-7, jspa...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
>> From the article:
>>
>> -----------------------------------
>>
>> When Joshua Bass, an engineer, sent his son to iSchool High, a Houston charter school, he was expecting a solid college preparation, including the chance to study some college courses before leaving high school. Instead, the Basses were shocked when their son came home from the taxpayer-funded school with apparently religiously motivated anti-science books.
>>
>>
>>

>> One of these books blamed Darwin�s theory of evolution for the Holocaust:
>>
>>
>>
>> [Hitler] has written that the Aryan (German) race would be the leader in all human progress. To accomplish that goal, all �lower races� should either be enslaved or eliminated. Apparently the theory of evolution and its �survival of the fittest� philosophy had taken root in Hitler�s warped mind.

>>
>>
>>
>> For Joshua, attacks on science in the classroom were unacceptable. Joshua began to research ResponsiveEd, the curriculum used at iSchool High. It emerged that ResponsiveEd was founded by Donald R. Howard, former owner of ACE (Accelerated Christian Education). ACE is a fundamentalist curriculum that teaches young-Earth creationism as fact. Last year it hit headlines because one of its high school science books taught that the Loch Ness Monster was real, and that this was evidence against evolution.
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> Read it at http://www.salon.com/2013/10/25/christian_textbooks_darwin_inspired_hitler/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> J. Spaceman
>
> Honest scholars have always known that Darwinism inspired the Holocaust. While Darwinists were busy ratifying natural selection as the main agent in the 1940s, Hitler walked the walk and was in the field selecting his perceived enemies for extinction.
>
> Empowered by the so called "fact of evolution" and the falsity of Genesis and Divine inspiration, the Nazi war machine acted as if no God exists, murdering tens of millions in cold blood.
>
> Most Evolutionists, of course, suppress and deny the facts seen above, who could blame them? But unpopular truth is still truth despite the fact that the Evolutionists control Education, the Courts, and the Microphone. There will always be people who will preserve truth no matter how unpopular and unpleasant.
>
> Ray (anti-evolutionist)
>

Maybe in Rayworld, but not on Earth. Hitler considered himself a
Christian, and often spoke and wrote of Christ and God. The only times
the NAZI leadership EVER mentioned Darwin was to discredit him, ban his
writings, and burn his books. Most of the of the justification for the
persecution and, eventually extermination, of the Jews was based on
interpretations of the Bible and writings of Martin Luther.

[eridanus]

El domingo, 27 de octubre de 2013 09:54:35 UTC, Klaus Hellnick escribi�:

> On 10/26/2013 12:29 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > On Friday, October 25, 2013 7:55:29 PM UTC-7, jspa...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
>
> >> From the article:
>
> >>
>
> >> -----------------------------------
>
> >>
>
> >> When Joshua Bass, an engineer, sent his son to iSchool High, a Houston charter school, he was expecting a solid college preparation, including the chance to study some college courses before leaving high school. Instead, the Basses were shocked when their son came home from the taxpayer-funded school with apparently religiously motivated anti-science books.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> One of these books blamed Darwin�s theory of evolution for the Holocaust:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> [Hitler] has written that the Aryan (German) race would be the leader in all human progress. To accomplish that goal, all �lower races� should either be enslaved or eliminated. Apparently the theory of evolution and its �survival of the fittest� philosophy had taken root in Hitler�s warped mind.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> For Joshua, attacks on science in the classroom were unacceptable. Joshua began to research ResponsiveEd, the curriculum used at iSchool High. It emerged that ResponsiveEd was founded by Donald R. Howard, former owner of ACE (Accelerated Christian Education). ACE is a fundamentalist curriculum that teaches young-Earth creationism as fact. Last year it hit headlines because one of its high school science books taught that the Loch Ness Monster was real, and that this was evidence against evolution.
>
> >>
>
> >> ------------------------------------
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Read it at http://www.salon.com/2013/10/25/christian_textbooks_darwin_inspired_hitler/
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> J. Spaceman
>
> >
>
> > Honest scholars have always known that Darwinism inspired the Holocaust.
> > While Darwinists were busy ratifying natural selection as the main agent
> > in the 1940s, Hitler walked the walk and was in the field selecting his
> > perceived enemies for extinction.
>
> > Empowered by the so called "fact of evolution" and the falsity of
> > Genesis and Divine inspiration, the Nazi war machine acted as if no God
> > exists, murdering tens of millions in cold blood.
>
> > Most Evolutionists, of course, suppress and deny the facts seen above,
> > who could blame them? But unpopular truth is still truth despite the fact
> > that the Evolutionists control Education, the Courts, and the Microphone.
> > There will always be people who will preserve truth no matter how unpopular
> > and unpleasant.

> > Ray (anti-evolutionist)

You are a genius, Ray.

>
> Maybe in Rayworld, but not on Earth. Hitler considered himself a
> Christian, and often spoke and wrote of Christ and God. The only times
> the NAZI leadership EVER mentioned Darwin was to discredit him, ban his
> writings, and burn his books. Most of the of the justification for the
> persecution and, eventually extermination, of the Jews was based on
> interpretations of the Bible and writings of Martin Luther.

Combined with a sense of patriotism. Patriotism have been traditionally
a save harbor for thugs and scoundrels.
Just imagine some thousands, not say a few millions of Germans that did
badly in school and had heard that some Jews had nice jobs in universities, were docs in medicine, and were considered rich and intelligent. Many of
them wrote books that sold very well, and made them win millions. If
anything occurred to those Jews they had well deserved it. But if they
had poisoned the wells... as in the middle ages (this was a common
accusation in the middle ages), and it they were conspiring to ruin
Germany, and to conquer the world... well, it was clear that they had
to be exterminated.
To convince stupid people, you need stupid arguments. Rational arguments
are valid to convince stupid people.

Eridanus

[RonO]

On 10/26/2013 10:03 PM, Desertphile wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:55:29 -0700 (PDT), jspa...@linuxquestions.net
> wrote:
>
>> Darwin inspired Hitler: Lies they teach in Texas
>
> Actually Martin Luther inspired Hitler.
>

Insipred, possibly, but he was raised as a Catholic and the claim is
that he was an atheist or some type of deist.

Ron Okimoto

[eridanus]

El domingo, 27 de octubre de 2013 13:49:36 UTC, Ron O escribi�:

I think his only god, apart his egomania, was mostly "patriotism".

He worshiped some form of patriotism, and he rouse feeding people some
shit on this topic. Ordinary people could not understand why a great
nation was suddenly full of shit, in the middle of a great economic
crisis that started in the US. On the other hand, the leaders of Germany
previous to the ascent of the Nazis thought rational ruin the economy
even farther into a huge inflation as a way of not paying the reparations
of war. This huge inflation impressed so much the common Germans, that
they could not understand it. It could only be explained by some absurd
idea, like the International Jewry conspiring to ruin Germany.
Traditionally, it was an old political trick to accuse the Jews of any
catastrophe. In this case, the Nazis resurrected this ancient trick of
politics. To accuse the witches or the vampires sounded too irrational
for the times.

Eridanus

[Dana Tweedy]

On 10/26/13, 11:29 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Friday, October 25, 2013 7:55:29 PM UTC-7, jspa...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
>> From the article:
>>
>> -----------------------------------
>>
>> When Joshua Bass, an engineer, sent his son to iSchool High, a Houston charter school, he was expecting a solid college preparation, including the chance to study some college courses before leaving high school. Instead, the Basses were shocked when their son came home from the taxpayer-funded school with apparently religiously motivated anti-science books.
>>
>>
>>

>> One of these books blamed Darwin�s theory of evolution for the Holocaust:
>>
>>
>>

>> [Hitler] has written that the Aryan (German) race would be the leader in all human progress. To accomplish that goal, all �lower races� should either be enslaved or eliminated. Apparently the theory of evolution and its �survival of the fittest� philosophy had taken root in Hitler�s warped mind.

>>
>>
>>
>> For Joshua, attacks on science in the classroom were unacceptable. Joshua began to research ResponsiveEd, the curriculum used at iSchool High. It emerged that ResponsiveEd was founded by Donald R. Howard, former owner of ACE (Accelerated Christian Education). ACE is a fundamentalist curriculum that teaches young-Earth creationism as fact. Last year it hit headlines because one of its high school science books taught that the Loch Ness Monster was real, and that this was evidence against evolution.
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> Read it at http://www.salon.com/2013/10/25/christian_textbooks_darwin_inspired_hitler/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> J. Spaceman
>
> Honest scholars have always known that Darwinism inspired the Holocaust.

Ray, you know nothing about honest persons, or what they know. Darwn's
theory no more inspired the Holocaust than Newton's laws of motion
inspired bombers.

> While Darwinists were busy ratifying natural selection as the main agent in the 1940s, Hitler walked the walk and was in the field selecting his perceived enemies for extinction.

Of course, that makes no sense. Natural selection is the opposite of
someone "selecting" enemies for extinction. Natural selection is about
the environment influencing which phenotypes will have differential
reproductive success.

Deliberately eliminating part of the gene pool only reduces the
viability of a population, and does nothing to increase it's survival
potential.

>
> Empowered by the so called "fact of evolution" and the falsity of Genesis and Divine inspiration, the Nazi war machine acted as if no God exists,

Actually, they acted like they were doing God's work, just like many
other genocidal people have done over the centuries.

> murdering tens of millions in cold blood.

and claiming it was God's will, just like the Bible commanded Samuel.

>
> Most Evolutionists, of course, suppress and deny the facts seen above,

Lies are not facts, Ray. Correcting lies is not suppressing anything.

> who could blame them? But unpopular truth is still truth despite the fact that the Evolutionists control Education, the Courts, and the Microphone.

If you want the "microphone", you need to show your ideas explain the
evidence better. So far you've failed to do that.

> There will always be people who will preserve truth no matter how unpopular and unpleasant.

And evolution is the truth. People like Ray lie to avoid an unpleasant
truth.


DJT

[eridanus]

El s�bado, 26 de octubre de 2013 18:29:01 UTC+1, Ray Martinez escribi�:

> On Friday, October 25, 2013 7:55:29 PM UTC-7, jspa...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
>
> > From the article:
>
> >
>
> > -----------------------------------
>
> >
>
> > When Joshua Bass, an engineer, sent his son to iSchool High, a Houston charter school, he was expecting a solid college preparation, including the chance to study some college courses before leaving high school. Instead, the Basses were shocked when their son came home from the taxpayer-funded school with apparently religiously motivated anti-science books.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>

> > One of these books blamed Darwin�s theory of evolution for the Holocaust:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>

> > [Hitler] has written that the Aryan (German) race would be the leader in all human progress. To accomplish that goal, all �lower races� should either be enslaved or eliminated. Apparently the theory of evolution and its �survival of the fittest� philosophy had taken root in Hitler�s warped mind.

>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > For Joshua, attacks on science in the classroom were unacceptable. Joshua began to research ResponsiveEd, the curriculum used at iSchool High. It emerged that ResponsiveEd was founded by Donald R. Howard, former owner of ACE (Accelerated Christian Education). ACE is a fundamentalist curriculum that teaches young-Earth creationism as fact. Last year it hit headlines because one of its high school science books taught that the Loch Ness Monster was real, and that this was evidence against evolution.
>
> >
>
> > ------------------------------------
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Read it at http://www.salon.com/2013/10/25/christian_textbooks_darwin_inspired_hitler/
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > J. Spaceman
>
>
>
> Honest scholars have always known that Darwinism inspired the Holocaust.
While Darwinists were busy ratifying natural selection as the main agent
in the 1940s, Hitler walked the walk and was in the field selecting his
perceived enemies for extinction.

Bullshit. What Hitler did was "artificial selection" not "natural
selection". Humans had been doing artificial selection not only with
domestic animals, but also by enslaving human beings and war prisoners.

Not only modern societies had been enslaving humans, but also primitive
societies as well. In this sense, some Southern Christians of US, were
favoring slavery, and not even the NT do says anything against slavery.
In this sense, the writers or editors of the gospel stories had nothing
to say against slavery.

The NT do not say anything against war either. In fact, there are some
words of Jesus saying "I did not come to the world to bring peace but war."
and it continues saying more on the theme.

Somewhat, Christianity would not be a religion of peace for these words.
On the other hand, according to History it is not any peaceful either.
It can be seen in fanatical words of some Christians manifesting against
some topics, while doing alliances with the most conservative political forces.
The wars of religion in Germany made some critical examples of barbarism,
and extermination of an entire city, I saw a video on this theme, that
proved wars in the name of Christianity were as murderous any any other
of the Mongols or whatever.
I do not see these people new any word about the theory of natural selection. Then, Christians are not any exception of cruelty, with other religions, etc.
The case of Hitler was a case of a demented attitude totally unrelated
to any rational way of thinking.

Eridanus

[Rolf]

"Desertphile" <deser...@nospam.org> skrev i melding
news:3j0p69dg2djvsbpbk...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:55:29 -0700 (PDT), jspa...@linuxquestions.net
> wrote:
>
>> Darwin inspired Hitler: Lies they teach in Texas
>
> Actually Martin Luther inspired Hitler.
>

The Bible inspired the Inquisition and witch-hunting.

[Paul J Gans]

Desertphile <deser...@nospam.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:55:29 -0700 (PDT), jspa...@linuxquestions.net
>wrote:

>> Darwin inspired Hitler: Lies they teach in Texas

>Actually Martin Luther inspired Hitler.

That may be too deep for some who need to get the
message.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[J. J. Lodder]

Rolf <rolf.a...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Desertphile" <deser...@nospam.org> skrev i melding
> news:3j0p69dg2djvsbpbk...@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:55:29 -0700 (PDT), jspa...@linuxquestions.net
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Darwin inspired Hitler: Lies they teach in Texas
> >
> > Actually Martin Luther inspired Hitler.
> >
>
> The Bible inspired the Inquisition and witch-hunting.

And the Inquisition was fiercely anti-semitic.
They drove out all the Jews from Portugal and Spain,
(in so far as they hadn't killed them)

Jan

[eridanus]

El domingo, 27 de octubre de 2013 22:27:27 UTC, Rolf escribi�:

> "Desertphile" <deser...@nospam.org> skrev i melding
>
> news:3j0p69dg2djvsbpbk...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:55:29 -0700 (PDT), jspa...@linuxquestions.net
>
> > wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> Darwin inspired Hitler: Lies they teach in Texas
>
> >
>
> > Actually Martin Luther inspired Hitler.
>
> >
>
>
>
> The Bible inspired the Inquisition and witch-hunting.
>

and the burning of gays in a fire. The burning of witches, and
hereticals.

Eridanus

[eridanus]

Synopsis of the diatribes of Luther against the Jews were wildly known
in Germany.
Eridanus

[jillery]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:22:53 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>El domingo, 27 de octubre de 2013 22:27:27 UTC, Rolf escribió:
>> "Desertphile" <deser...@nospam.org> skrev i melding
>>
>> news:3j0p69dg2djvsbpbk...@4ax.com...
>>
>> > On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:55:29 -0700 (PDT), jspa...@linuxquestions.net
>>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> Darwin inspired Hitler: Lies they teach in Texas
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Actually Martin Luther inspired Hitler.
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> The Bible inspired the Inquisition and witch-hunting.
>>
>
>and the burning of gays in a fire. The burning of witches, and
>hereticals.

... which has a disturbing historical correlation to flaming faggot.

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 10/28/2013 8:19 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:22:53 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
> <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>> El domingo, 27 de octubre de 2013 22:27:27 UTC, Rolf escribi�:

>>> "Desertphile" <deser...@nospam.org> skrev i melding
>>>
>>> news:3j0p69dg2djvsbpbk...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:55:29 -0700 (PDT), jspa...@linuxquestions.net
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> Darwin inspired Hitler: Lies they teach in Texas
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Actually Martin Luther inspired Hitler.
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Bible inspired the Inquisition and witch-hunting.
>>>
>>
>> and the burning of gays in a fire. The burning of witches, and
>> hereticals.
>
>
> ... which has a disturbing historical correlation to flaming faggot.

Naughty, naughty...

Mitchell

[jillery]

I'm not trying to be rude. I'm leery of internet-based just-so
stories, but I can't think of another reason why that word and its
variants have been applied to homosexuals, contemptible women, bundles
of sticks, glowing firebrands, and cigarettes.

[Paul J Gans]

Not really. The Inquisition was concerned only with lapsed
Catholics. Since many Jews had been forcibly converted in two
earlier attempts to solve the "Jewish Problem", they were the
main targets.

However, execution, deportation, etc., was only in the power
of the crown. When Ferdinand and Isabella finally destroyed
the last Moslem foothold in Spain (Granada) in early 1492, the
way was open for them to move on to bigger and better things.
So Columbus was funded and so was the mass deportation of the
remaining Jews in Spain. In fact Columbus's ships sailed past
the still anchored fleet of ships carrying Jews out of the
country.

As for the Jewish lapsed Catholics, a fair number ended up in
the new world. A major settlement area was in northern
Mexico, now part of the US. Their history makes interesting
reading.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Monday, 28 October 2013 15:25:34 UTC, jillery wrote:
> I'm not trying to be rude. I'm leery of internet-based just-so
> stories, but I can't think of another reason why that word and its
> variants have been applied to homosexuals, contemptible women, bundles
> of sticks, glowing firebrands, and cigarettes.

The word "flagrant" comes to mind, and an online dictionary
gives it an archaic version with a sense of combustion.

I think I'm only aware of "faggot" applied to an elderly female
in the "Ambrose and Felicity" sketches in B.B.C. radio show
_Beyond Our Ken_, but that may be my limited experience.
Or it stood in the place of a word that couldn't be used
on radio.

[TomS]

"On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 11:25:34 -0400, in article
<9e0t691fe6ar22pk2...@4ax.com>, jillery stated..."

I have no knowledge or expertise on this, but ISTM that it was only
applied to gay men *after* it was an insulting term for a woman, perhaps
as a stereotype of a "womanly" male. And allow me to make a wild,
unsubstantiated guess that it was applied to women as a reference to
one of the stereotypical chores of women: gathering firewood as small
branches from the forest. I dunno, and I certainly am not going to
argue the point, except to suggest that my guess has *no less* backing
than yours.


--
---Tom S.

[Mitchell Coffey]

What? But I /like/ naughty!

Mitchell

[Ray Martinez]

On Sunday, October 27, 2013 2:54:35 AM UTC-7, Klaus Hellnick wrote:
> On 10/26/2013 12:29 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > On Friday, October 25, 2013 7:55:29 PM UTC-7, jspa...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
>
> >> From the article:
>
> >>
>
> >> -----------------------------------
>
> >>
>
> >> When Joshua Bass, an engineer, sent his son to iSchool High, a Houston charter school, he was expecting a solid college preparation, including the chance to study some college courses before leaving high school. Instead, the Basses were shocked when their son came home from the taxpayer-funded school with apparently religiously motivated anti-science books.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>

> >> One of these books blamed Darwin’s theory of evolution for the Holocaust:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> [Hitler] has written that the Aryan (German) race would be the leader in all human progress. To accomplish that goal, all “lower races” should either be enslaved or eliminated. Apparently the theory of evolution and its “survival of the fittest” philosophy had taken root in Hitler’s warped mind.

>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> For Joshua, attacks on science in the classroom were unacceptable. Joshua began to research ResponsiveEd, the curriculum used at iSchool High. It emerged that ResponsiveEd was founded by Donald R. Howard, former owner of ACE (Accelerated Christian Education). ACE is a fundamentalist curriculum that teaches young-Earth creationism as fact. Last year it hit headlines because one of its high school science books taught that the Loch Ness Monster was real, and that this was evidence against evolution.
>
> >>
>
> >> ------------------------------------
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Read it at http://www.salon.com/2013/10/25/christian_textbooks_darwin_inspired_hitler/
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> J. Spaceman
>
> >
>
> > Honest scholars have always known that Darwinism inspired the Holocaust. While Darwinists were busy ratifying natural selection as the main agent in the 1940s, Hitler walked the walk and was in the field selecting his perceived enemies for extinction.
>
> >
>
> > Empowered by the so called "fact of evolution" and the falsity of Genesis and Divine inspiration, the Nazi war machine acted as if no God exists, murdering tens of millions in cold blood.
>
> >
>
> > Most Evolutionists, of course, suppress and deny the facts seen above, who could blame them? But unpopular truth is still truth despite the fact that the Evolutionists control Education, the Courts, and the Microphone. There will always be people who will preserve truth no matter how unpopular and unpleasant.
>
> >
>
> > Ray (anti-evolutionist)
>
> >
>
>
>
> Maybe in Rayworld, but not on Earth. Hitler considered himself a
>
> Christian, and often spoke and wrote of Christ and God. The only times
>
> the NAZI leadership EVER mentioned Darwin was to discredit him, ban his
>
> writings, and burn his books. Most of the of the justification for the
>
> persecution and, eventually extermination, of the Jews was based on
>
> interpretations of the Bible and writings of Martin Luther.

Good example of the Atheist agenda having taken root and growing.

Ray

[jillery]

According to this:

<http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=faggot>

its application to women precedes its reference to homosexual men by
several centuries. The same article also says:

"The oft-reprinted assertion that male homosexuals were called faggots
because they were burned at the stake as punishment is an etymological
urban legend"

and that is the basis for my expressed skepticism of this explanation.

[Nick Roberts]

In message <621654bf-13b5-4dab...@googlegroups.com>

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, October 27, 2013 2:54:35 AM UTC-7, Klaus Hellnick wrote:
> > On 10/26/2013 12:29 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >

[SNIP]

> > > Honest scholars have always known that Darwinism inspired the
> > > Holocaust. While Darwinists were busy ratifying natural selection
> > > as the main agent in the 1940s, Hitler walked the walk and was in
> > > the field selecting his perceived enemies for extinction.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Empowered by the so called "fact of evolution" and the falsity of
> > > Genesis and Divine inspiration, the Nazi war machine acted as if
> > > no God exists, murdering tens of millions in cold blood.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Most Evolutionists, of course, suppress and deny the facts seen
> > > above, who could blame them? But unpopular truth is still truth
> > > despite the fact that the Evolutionists control Education, the
> > > Courts, and the Microphone. There will always be people who will
> > > preserve truth no matter how unpopular and unpleasant.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Ray (anti-evolutionist)
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Maybe in Rayworld, but not on Earth. Hitler considered himself a
> >
> > Christian, and often spoke and wrote of Christ and God. The only
> > times
> > the NAZI leadership EVER mentioned Darwin was to discredit him, ban
> > his
> > writings, and burn his books. Most of the of the justification for
> > the
> > persecution and, eventually extermination, of the Jews was based on
> > interpretations of the Bible and writings of Martin Luther.
>
> Good example of the Atheist agenda having taken root and growing.
>
> Ray

Good example of Ray not letting the facts get in the way of a good
prejudice.


--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

[Ray Martinez]

The Atheist agenda isn't based on facts, but hatred of the religion that says they are going to hell for denying the existence of God.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, October 26, 2013 11:02:28 AM UTC-7, Boikat wrote:

> On Saturday, October 26, 2013 12:29:01 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > On Friday, October 25, 2013 7:55:29 PM UTC-7, jspa...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
>
> >
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>

> > Honest scholars have always known that Darwinism inspired the Holocaust.
>
>
>

> One cup of cool-aid.

>
>
>
> > While Darwinists were busy ratifying natural selection as the main agent in the 1940s, Hitler walked the walk and was in the field selecting his perceived enemies for extinction.
>
> >
>
>
>

> Two cups of cool-aid.

>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Empowered by the so called "fact of evolution" and the falsity of Genesis and Divine inspiration, the Nazi war machine acted as if no God exists, murdering tens of millions in cold blood.
>
>
>

> Three cups of cool-aid.

>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Most Evolutionists, of course, suppress and deny the facts seen above,
>
>
>

> Your words contained no facts, just accusations and falsehoods. No "honest scholars" have ever shown the ToE to be Hitler's inspiration, or justification, for his actions.

>
>
>
> > who could blame them? But unpopular truth is still truth despite the fact that the Evolutionists control Education, the Courts, and the Microphone. There will always be people who will preserve truth no matter how unpopular and unpleasant.
>
>
>

> Truth? You can't handle the truth. All you want to do is keep serving cool-aid.
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Ray (anti-evolutionist)
>
>
>
> You mean "anti-realist".
>
>
>
> Boikat

As I observed in my commentary: The Evolutionist denies the fact of a Darwin inspired Holocaust.

Hitler had the Darwinian concept of a struggle to survive in mind when he titled "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle).

It's hard to blame the Evolutionist for denying; Hitler, of course, is the worst possible company.

Ray

[Richard Norman]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 13:50:09 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:


>
>As I observed in my commentary: The Evolutionist denies the fact of a Darwin inspired Holocaust.
>Hitler had the Darwinian concept of a struggle to survive in mind when he titled "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle).
>It's hard to blame the Evolutionist for denying; Hitler, of course, is the worst possible company.
>

Funny thing -- the word "jihad" also means "struggle". That Darwin
really got around!

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 10/28/2013 4:50 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
[snip]

> Hitler had the Darwinian concept of a struggle to survive in mind when he titled "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle).

[snip]

What is your evidence for this assertion?

Mitchell Coffey

[r3p...@gmail.com]

Beside the internal support:

"The Third Reich In Power" (2005) by Professor of Modern History at
Cambridge University, Richard J. Evans.

"Nazism's use of quasi-religious symbols and rituals was real enough, but it was for the most part more a matter of style than substance. 'Hitler's studied usurpation of religious functions,' as one historian has written, 'was perhaps a displaced hatred of the Christian tradition: the hatred of an apostate.' The real core of Nazi beliefs lay in the faith Hitler proclaimed in his speech of September 1938 in science - a Nazi view of science - as the basis for action.
Science demanded the furtherance of the interests not of God but of the human race, and above all the German race and its future in a world ruled by the ineluctable laws of Darwinian competition between races and between individuals" (p. 259).

Ray

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 10/28/2013 10:23 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 28, 2013 3:43:25 PM UTC-7, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>> On 10/28/2013 4:50 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hitler had the Darwinian concept of a struggle to survive in mind when he titled "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle).
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>
>> What is your evidence for this assertion?
>>
>>
>>
>> Mitchell Coffey
>
> Beside the internal support:

Note you're unable to produce any of this asserted "internal support."

> "The Third Reich In Power" (2005) by Professor of Modern History at
> Cambridge University, Richard J. Evans.
>
> "Nazism's use of quasi-religious symbols and rituals was real enough, but it was for the most part more a matter of style than substance. 'Hitler's studied usurpation of religious functions,' as one historian has written, 'was perhaps a displaced hatred of the Christian tradition: the hatred of an apostate.' The real core of Nazi beliefs lay in the faith Hitler proclaimed in his speech of September 1938 in science - a Nazi view of science - as the basis for action.
> Science demanded the furtherance of the interests not of God but of the human race, and above all the German race and its future in a world ruled by the ineluctable laws of Darwinian competition between races and between individuals" (p. 259).

In other words, you have no evidence for your assertion that "Hitler had

the Darwinian concept of a struggle to survive in mind when he titled

"Mein Kampf" (My Struggle)." You couldn't find a quote from Hilter
backing your claim as to the source of the title; you couldn't find a
quote from anyone from or referring to the time Mein Kampf was
published; you couldn't come up with any reference to the naming of the
book, period. What you have is a characterization by one historian of
one speech unrelated to the book Hitler had written 15 years earlier.

Mitchell Coffey

[Boikat]

On Monday, October 28, 2013 3:50:09 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Saturday, October 26, 2013 11:02:28 AM UTC-7, Boikat wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, October 26, 2013 12:29:01 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Friday, October 25, 2013 7:55:29 PM UTC-7, jspa...@linuxquestions.net wrote:

<Snip>

>
> As I observed in my commentary: The Evolutionist denies the fact of a Darwin > inspired Holocaust.

The claim that "Darwin inspired the Holocaust" is not a fact.

>
>
>
> Hitler had the Darwinian concept of a struggle to survive in mind when he titled "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle).

Actually, it's "fight". But aside from that, are you claiming that anyone who says they have "struggled" for something was inspired by Darwin? Are you that stupid? (I know. Rhetorical question, but there it is.)

>
>
>
> It's hard to blame the Evolutionist for denying; Hitler, of course, is the
> worst possible company.

So, you are admitting to the attempt at "Guilt by Association" logical fallacy? That's a common brand of creationist cool-aid.

Boikat

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 29 October 2013 03:17:36 UTC, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
> On 10/28/2013 10:23 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Beside the internal support:
>
> Note you're unable to produce any of this asserted
> "internal support."

I think we've discussed from time to time that there
is no support in _Mein Kampf_ for a belief in the
theory of evolution. However, since it is written
in German, a partisan translator can make it say
anything that they please in English.

<http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html>
is the appropriate comment on Nazi beliefs, at length.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 11:09:31 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Saturday, October 26, 2013 8:03:12 PM UTC-7, Desertphile wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:55:29 -0700 (PDT), jspa...@linuxquestions.net
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Darwin inspired Hitler: Lies they teach in Texas
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually Martin Luther inspired Hitler.
>>
>

>I didn't know that the most infamous mass murderer in modern times was a Lutheran?

Non sequitur. I'm inspired by George Washington and Thomas
Jefferson, but I'm neither a politician nor a slaveowner in
Virginia.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 18:43:25 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mitchell Coffey
<mitchel...@gmail.com>:

Don't pick it up if he offers it, at least not without
rubber gloves; it's all brown and smelly.

[Alan]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7e9dad38-9c72-47ca...@googlegroups.com...

> On Saturday, October 26, 2013 11:02:28 AM UTC-7, Boikat wrote:
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2013 12:29:01 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>> > On Friday, October 25, 2013 7:55:29 PM UTC-7,
>> > jspa...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>

> As I observed in my commentary: The Evolutionist denying the fact of a
> Darwin inspired Holocaust.
>
> Hitler had the Darwinian concept of a struugle to survive in mind when he
> title "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle).

>
> It's hard to blame the Evolutionist for denying; Hitler, of course, is the
> worst possible company.
>

> Ray
>

Actually the holocaust was religiously-inspired. By Martin Luther. Hitler
was opposed to evolution. The Nazis removed all references to it from their
biology books. Because evolution said that anyone could be the ancestor of
the next "master race". Hitler wasn't opposed to eugenics - but that wasn't
inspired by evolution. It was "inspired" by a 19th century idea of racial
progress that was grafted onto evolution by the likes of Francis Galton.

Alan

[Tim Norfolk]

On Sunday, October 27, 2013 5:54:35 AM UTC-4, Klaus Hellnick wrote:
<snip>

> >
> Maybe in Rayworld, but not on Earth. Hitler considered himself a
> Christian, and often spoke and wrote of Christ and God. The only times
> the NAZI leadership EVER mentioned Darwin was to discredit him, ban his
> writings, and burn his books. Most of the of the justification for the
> persecution and, eventually extermination, of the Jews was based on
> interpretations of the Bible and writings of Martin Luther.

There is also the small matter that the ideas of racial superiority, including death camps, were practiced at Shark Island in Africa 1904-1908, long before Hitler's writings.

[Tim Norfolk]

Isn't faggot a derivative of 'fasces', or bundle of sticks, which is also the root of Fascists?

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, October 28, 2013 8:17:36 PM UTC-7, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
> On 10/28/2013 10:23 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Monday, October 28, 2013 3:43:25 PM UTC-7, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>
> >> On 10/28/2013 4:50 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> [snip]
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Hitler had the Darwinian concept of a struggle to survive in mind when he titled "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle).
>
> >>
>
> >> [snip]
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> What is your evidence for this assertion?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Mitchell Coffey
>
> >
>
> > Beside the internal support:
>
>
>
> Note you're unable to produce any of this asserted "internal support."
>

Once again:

Hitler had the Darwinian concept of a struggle to survive in mind when he titled "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle).

>
>

> > "The Third Reich In Power" (2005) by Professor of Modern History at
>
> > Cambridge University, Richard J. Evans.
>
> >
>
> > "Nazism's use of quasi-religious symbols and rituals was real enough, but it was for the most part more a matter of style than substance. 'Hitler's studied usurpation of religious functions,' as one historian has written, 'was perhaps a displaced hatred of the Christian tradition: the hatred of an apostate.' The real core of Nazi beliefs lay in the faith Hitler proclaimed in his speech of September 1938 in science - a Nazi view of science - as the basis for action.
>
> > Science demanded the furtherance of the interests not of God but of the human race, and above all the German race and its future in a world ruled by the ineluctable laws of Darwinian competition between races and between individuals" (p. 259).
> >
>
>
> In other words, you have no evidence for your assertion that "Hitler had
>
> the Darwinian concept of a struggle to survive in mind when he titled
>
> "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle)." You couldn't find a quote from Hilter
>
> backing your claim as to the source of the title; you couldn't find a
>
> quote from anyone from or referring to the time Mein Kampf was
>
> published; you couldn't come up with any reference to the naming of the
>
> book, period. What you have is a characterization by one historian of
>
> one speech unrelated to the book Hitler had written 15 years earlier.
>
>
>
> Mitchell Coffey

Downplaying.

Suddenly a fact produced by scholarship becomes a mere "characterization" all because the fact contradicts your preference. Moreover, your unrelated claim assumes that when Hitler made the speech he wasn't an Evolutionist 13 (not 15) years earlier. The only proper assumption is that Hilter was an Evolutionist way before he made said speech.

At a minimum the quote provides general support of my claim.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

The Atheist agenda in action.

> Hitler
>
> was opposed to evolution.

"The Third Reich In Power" (2005) by Professor of Modern History at
Cambridge University, Richard J. Evans.

"Nazism's use of quasi-religious symbols and rituals was real enough, but it was for the most part more a matter of style than substance. 'Hitler's studied usurpation of religious functions,' as one historian has written, 'was perhaps a displaced hatred of the Christian tradition: the hatred of an apostate.' The real core of Nazi beliefs lay in the faith Hitler proclaimed in his speech of September 1938 in science - a Nazi view of science - as the basis for action.
Science demanded the furtherance of the interests not of God but of the human race, and above all the German race and its future in a world ruled by the ineluctable laws of Darwinian competition between races and between individuals" (p. 259).

> The Nazis removed all references to it from their
>
> biology books. Because evolution said that anyone could be the ancestor of
>
> the next "master race". Hitler wasn't opposed to eugenics - but that wasn't
>
> inspired by evolution. It was "inspired" by a 19th century idea of racial
>
> progress that was grafted onto evolution by the likes of Francis Galton.
>
>
>
> Alan

And Francis Galton was cousin of Charles Darwin.

Both men believed strongly in white superiority, which was, of course, the main tenet of Nazism.

Ray

[jillery]

Yeppers. Yet another item to add to my list of odd etymological
associations.

[deadrat]

No, we get "faggot" as a bundle of sticks from the French word "fagot,"
the origin of which is unknown.

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 10/29/2013 10:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, October 28, 2013 8:17:36 PM UTC-7, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>> On 10/28/2013 10:23 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, October 28, 2013 3:43:25 PM UTC-7, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>>
>>>> On 10/28/2013 4:50 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> [snip]
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Hitler had the Darwinian concept of a struggle to survive in mind when he titled "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle).
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> [snip]
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> What is your evidence for this assertion?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Mitchell Coffey
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Beside the internal support:
>>
>>
>>
>> Note you're unable to produce any of this asserted "internal support."
>>
>
> Once again:
>
> Hitler had the Darwinian concept of a struggle to survive in mind when he titled "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle).

That's not "internal support;" that's a quotation of your original claim.

>>
>>
>>> "The Third Reich In Power" (2005) by Professor of Modern History at
>>
>>> Cambridge University, Richard J. Evans.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> "Nazism's use of quasi-religious symbols and rituals was real enough, but it was for the most part more a matter of style than substance. 'Hitler's studied usurpation of religious functions,' as one historian has written, 'was perhaps a displaced hatred of the Christian tradition: the hatred of an apostate.' The real core of Nazi beliefs lay in the faith Hitler proclaimed in his speech of September 1938 in science - a Nazi view of science - as the basis for action.
>>
>>> Science demanded the furtherance of the interests not of God but of the human race, and above all the German race and its future in a world ruled by the ineluctable laws of Darwinian competition between races and between individuals" (p. 259).
>>>
>>
>>
>> In other words, you have no evidence for your assertion that "Hitler had
>>
>> the Darwinian concept of a struggle to survive in mind when he titled
>>
>> "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle)." You couldn't find a quote from Hilter
>>
>> backing your claim as to the source of the title; you couldn't find a
>>
>> quote from anyone from or referring to the time Mein Kampf was
>>
>> published; you couldn't come up with any reference to the naming of the
>>
>> book, period. What you have is a characterization by one historian of
>>
>> one speech unrelated to the book Hitler had written 15 years earlier.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mitchell Coffey
>
> Downplaying.
>
> Suddenly a fact produced by scholarship becomes a mere "characterization" all because the fact contradicts your preference. Moreover, your unrelated claim assumes that when Hitler made the speech he wasn't an Evolutionist 13 (not 15) years earlier. The only proper assumption is that Hilter was an Evolutionist way before he made said speech.
>
> At a minimum the quote provides general support of my claim.
>
> Ray

Look up what the word "characterization" means. Evans didn't quote or
paraphrase Hitler, he characterized what he said.

I didn't make the claim that when Hilter made the 1938 speech he wasn't
an evolutionist.

But back to the issue at hand. If you could quote any "internal
support," you would; if you could come up with any reference to the
naming of the book, you would. Hitler was referring to his own political
struggle, as is made clear by the longer title that Hitler wished to
name his book; "Mein Kampf" was his publisher's recommendation.

Mitchell Coffey

[Mitchell Coffey]

Darwin hardly believed strongly in white superiority; he was less racist
than most Englishmen of his day, claiming there was little difference in
mind and body between the races and that their differences where indistinct.

Mitchell Coffey

[Robert Carnegie]

On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:38:31 AM UTC, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
> On 10/29/2013 10:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > The only proper assumption is that Hilter was an Evolutionist way
> > before he made said speech. At a minimum the quote provides
> > general support of my claim.
>

> I didn't make the claim that when Hilter made the 1938 speech he wasn't
> an evolutionist.

Then I'll have to. The Nazis banned books "whose content deals
with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and
Monism (Häckel)". <http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html>

However, a couple of web pages that I looked at to find out what Monism
is on this occasion propose that the Nazis were huge admirers of Haeckel.
<http://www.pantheism.net/paul/history/haeckel.htm>
<http://www.egs.edu/library/ernst-haeckel/>

This seems unlikely to me since his Monism included supposing that
all living things, and, in particular, the human "races", are, and
are made of, the same stuff, which is called "Plasma". So evidently
either the descent of man from primates, or the unity of humanity,
is precisely what the Nazis (and the Catholic Church) objected to.

In supposing - as I read this - that any creature of Plasma can be
moulded or bred into the form of any other creature, he's excluded
his works from a place in /my/ library, except for entertainment.

I suppose that he may have also had ideas of scientific racism that
I haven't picked up on yet that the Nazis perhaps liked, but clearly
not racist enough for them, finally, what with human "racial"
differences being, in his view (I think), entirely plastic.

[J. J. Lodder]

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, October 27, 2013 2:54:35 AM UTC-7, Klaus Hellnick wrote:
> > On 10/26/2013 12:29 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

[snip googlegarbia]

> > > Most Evolutionists, of course, suppress and deny the facts seen above,
> > > who could blame them? But unpopular truth is still truth despite the
> > > fact that the Evolutionists control Education, the Courts, and the
> > > Microphone. There will always be people who will preserve truth no
> > > matter how unpopular and unpleasant.
> > >
> >
> > > Ray (anti-evolutionist)
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Maybe in Rayworld, but not on Earth. Hitler considered himself a
> >
> > Christian, and often spoke and wrote of Christ and God. The only times
> >
> > the NAZI leadership EVER mentioned Darwin was to discredit him, ban his
> >
> > writings, and burn his books. Most of the of the justification for the
> >
> > persecution and, eventually extermination, of the Jews was based on
> >
> > interpretations of the Bible and writings of Martin Luther.
>
> Good example of the Atheist agenda having taken root and growing.

Why don't you look at the source, instead of spouting lies?
It is still in print in English translation.

<http://www.amazon.com/Luther-published-Liberty-Publications-Paperback/d
p/B008SM5QGU>

The summary in
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies>
is accurate.

Hitler practised what Luther had preached,

Jan

[jillery]

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=faggot&searchmode=none

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=fagot&searchmode=none

"late 13c., "bundle of twigs bound up," from Old French fagot "bundle
of sticks" (13c.), of uncertain origin, probably from Italian
faggotto, diminutive of Vulgar Latin *facus, from Latin fascis "bundle
of wood" (see fasces).

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fasces&allowed_in_frame=0

"Carried before a lictor, a superior Roman magistrate, as a symbol of
power over life and limb: the sticks symbolized punishment by
whipping, the axe head execution by beheading."

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/faggot#faggot__5

"early 20th century: perhaps from the obsolete sense of fagot
'contemptible woman'"

http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/67623

says the origin of the french "fagot" is unknown. I leave it to the
experts to decide if its unknown or merely uncertain. Its association
with the Latin "fascis" is plausible.

[Barba]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>
> "late 13c., "bundle of twigs bound up," from Old French fagot "bundle
> of sticks" (13c.), of uncertain origin, probably from Italian
> faggotto, diminutive of Vulgar Latin *facus, from Latin fascis "bundle
> of wood" (see fasces).
>

Actually the italian term is "fagotto" (one "g" only) and the italian
dictionary report it as "from the french 'fagot' of uncertain origin".....

Fagotto is also the italian name of the bassoon.

G

[jillery]

On 30 Oct 2013 14:42:05 GMT, Barba <snotana...@notmail.invalid>
wrote:

Yet another odd etymological association.

[J. J. Lodder]

And from Italian music culture the 'fagot'
infiltrated in many other languages. (in various spellings)
In fact it is the usual name for the instrument,
with French Basson, English Bassoon being the exceptions.

So, au contraire, Bassoon is the English name for the Fagot,

Jan

[Tim Norfolk]

I wouldn't worry about a single 'g'. After all, we English spell the choice cuts of beef and fish 'fillet'.

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 9:38:31 PM UTC-7, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
> On 10/29/2013 10:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > On Monday, October 28, 2013 8:17:36 PM UTC-7, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>
> >> On 10/28/2013 10:23 PM, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Monday, October 28, 2013 3:43:25 PM UTC-7, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>> On 10/28/2013 4:50 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> [snip]
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> Hitler had the Darwinian concept of a struggle to survive in mind when he titled "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle).
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> [snip]
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> What is your evidence for this assertion?
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Mitchell Coffey
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Beside the internal support:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Note you're unable to produce any of this asserted "internal support."
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Once again:
>
> >
>
> > Hitler had the Darwinian concept of a struggle to survive in mind when he titled "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle).
> >
>
>
> That's not "internal support;" that's a quotation of your original claim.
>

In other words you don't know what "internal support" means.

>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> "The Third Reich In Power" (2005) by Professor of Modern History at
>
> >>
>
> >>> Cambridge University, Richard J. Evans.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> "Nazism's use of quasi-religious symbols and rituals was real enough, but it was for the most part more a matter of style than substance. 'Hitler's studied usurpation of religious functions,' as one historian has written, 'was perhaps a displaced hatred of the Christian tradition: the hatred of an apostate.' The real core of Nazi beliefs lay in the faith Hitler proclaimed in his speech of September 1938 in science - a Nazi view of science - as the basis for action.
>
> >>
>
> >>> Science demanded the furtherance of the interests not of God but of the human race, and above all the German race and its future in a world ruled by the ineluctable laws of Darwinian competition between races and between individuals" (p. 259).
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> In other words, you have no evidence for your assertion that "Hitler had
>
> >>
>
> >> the Darwinian concept of a struggle to survive in mind when he titled
>
> >>
>
> >> "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle)." You couldn't find a quote from Hilter
>
> >>
>
> >> backing your claim as to the source of the title; you couldn't find a
>
> >>
>
> >> quote from anyone from or referring to the time Mein Kampf was
>
> >>
>
> >> published; you couldn't come up with any reference to the naming of the
>
> >>
>
> >> book, period. What you have is a characterization by one historian of
>
> >>
>
> >> one speech unrelated to the book Hitler had written 15 years earlier.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Mitchell Coffey
>
> >
>
> > Downplaying.
>
> >
>
> > Suddenly a fact produced by scholarship becomes a mere "characterization" all because the fact contradicts your preference. Moreover, your unrelated claim assumes that when Hitler made the speech he wasn't an Evolutionist 13 (not 15) years earlier. The only proper assumption is that Hilter was an Evolutionist way before he made said speech.
> >
> >
>
> > At a minimum the quote provides general support of my claim.
>
> >
>
> > Ray
>
>
>
> Look up what the word "characterization" means. Evans didn't quote or
>
> paraphrase Hitler, he characterized what he said.
>

You have a strange way of expressing agreement.

>
>
> I didn't make the claim that when Hilter made the 1938 speech he wasn't
>
> an evolutionist.

You implied as much.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Our Evolutionist sees the need to make Darwin better than his peers. We who have no prior commitment to evolution have no problem recognizing that Darwin was what we know as a white supremacist.

> claiming there was little difference in
>
> mind and body between the races and that their differences where indistinct.
>
>
>
> Mitchell Coffey

Subjective nonsense.

Darwin believed rich white Englishmen were superior human beings; he wholly endorsed the proto-Nazi eugenics movement founded by his cousin, Francis Galton. One of Darwin's sons addressed a eugenics conference in London telling the attendees that his father completely agreed with their agenda; he should know for after all he grew up on his knee.

Mitch: You're a victim of the Atheist agenda and their goal of sanitizing Darwin their Saviour.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Luther advocated what he advocated for warped theological reasons; Hitler advocated what he advocated for racial superiority reasons. The fact that you attempt to misrepresent, and the fact that you would try and connect Hitler with Luther while bypassing Darwin clearly demonstrates the Atheist agenda in action.

And it is quite noticeable that you've evaded the quote from scholarship (pasted upthread) that says Hitler was a Darwinian. And you'd be hard pressed to find a Bible with Hitler's name on it, or a picture of him attending Church. Of course the Atheist agenda requires all facts that stain Darwin with crimes against humanity to be ignored and suppressed.

Ray

[Burkhard]

On Thursday, October 31, 2013 12:10:38 AM UTC, Ray Martinez wrote:
<sni>

>
> Luther advocated what he advocated for warped theological reasons; Hitler advocated what he advocated for racial superiority reasons.

potaahto-potayto

> The fact that you attempt to misrepresent, and the fact that you would try >and connect Hitler with Luther while bypassing Darwin clearly demonstrates the Atheist agenda in action.
>
>
>
> And it is quite noticeable that you've evaded the quote from scholarship (pasted upthread) that says Hitler was a Darwinian. And you'd be hard pressed to find a Bible with Hitler's name on it, or a picture of him attending Church.

here are a couple of him doing just that:
http://www.flyingchariotministries.com/nazisandthechurch.htm

[Burkhard]

The English eugenicists around Galton were not that interested in race, that was an American issue, but class. In particular they worried about birth rates of working class vs upper class, and prevalence of mental illness due to inbreeding - one of their main action points therefore was to extend railway links to rural parts of the UK to improve genetic diversity. another was maternity pay for educated woman only . Lots of policies that range between the idiotic and the repugnant (and a few good ones, such as their actions against incest), but race did not figure in a country that had a low immigration rate anyway.

These views were commonly held by the Victorians, including the Church of England. One of its most vocal advocates in Britain was Dr. William Inge, Dean of St. Paul's Cathedral and as such one of the most senior members of the Church of England. He was known as the "Gloomy Dean", precisely for warnings about overpopulation by the "inferior" lower classes. (Porter, Harry C. "The Gloomy Dean and the Law Essays in Modern English Church History in Memory of Normal Sykes, ed. GV Bennett and JD Walsh (New York, 1966)). In an essay published in 1917 called simply Eugenics,he wrote that: "Unfortunately the birth-rate of the feeble-minded is quite 50% higher than that of normal persons." The answer was eugenics, beginning with "the compulsory segregation of mental defectives."

[Richard Norman]

<mercifully snip more than a thousand lines almost all blank>

The sad fact is that we cannot deny the influence of "Darwinism" on
the development of social Darwinism, eugenics, and ultimately fascist
racism. There are ample academic and scientific sources to make the
connection including, for example

"Biological Science and the Roots of Nazism" in American Scientist
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/27854963

Progress through Racial Extermination: Social Darwinism, Eugenics,
and Pacifism in Germany, 1860-1918
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1433326

Racism as social policy: The Nazi ‘euthanasia’ programme, 1939–1945 in
Ethnic and Racial Studies

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01419870.1991.9993722#.UnG4FGzD_4Y

The Origins of Social Darwinism in Germany, 1859-1895 in J. History of
Ideas
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2710024

Darwin, social Darwinism and eugenics in German Studies Review
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1433326

It is well understood that social Darwinism was an utter perversion of
Darwinian biological evolution but it is also unfortunately true that
people adopted Darwin's ideas to support notions of racial superiority
and eugenics widely in Europe in the era before the rise of the Nazis.
The roots were well established in Germany at the time.

[J. J. Lodder]

OK, some truth at last. So you admit now that Luther inspired Hitler.
And the only excuse you can come up is 'warped theological reaasons'.
To the victims the peculiarities of the warps don't matter.

> The fact that
> you attempt to misrepresent, and the fact that you would try and connect
> Hitler with Luther while bypassing Darwin clearly demonstrates the Atheist
> agenda in action.

There is no Darwin in between.
There is a direct link from Luther to Hitler.

> And it is quite noticeable that you've evaded the quote from scholarship
> (pasted upthread) that says Hitler was a Darwinian.

Others have adequately demolished that elsethread.

I see no reason to say the same things once more,

Jan

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 22:01:25 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Richard Norman
<r_s_n...@comcast.net>:

Sure; it wasn't the first time knowledge was misapplied to
support a social or political agenda, and it almost
certainly won't be the last. But blaming Darwin for the
perversion and subsequent misuse of his work is the worst
sort of "blame the victim" hyperbole.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:47:38 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 11:09:31 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
><pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>
>>On Saturday, October 26, 2013 8:03:12 PM UTC-7, Desertphile wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:55:29 -0700 (PDT), jspa...@linuxquestions.net
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Darwin inspired Hitler: Lies they teach in Texas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually Martin Luther inspired Hitler.
>>>
>>

>>I didn't know that the most infamous mass murderer in modern times was a Lutheran?
>
>Non sequitur. I'm inspired by George Washington and Thomas
>Jefferson, but I'm neither a politician nor a slaveowner in
>Virginia.

And once more Ray is silent when refuted...

[jillery]

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:20:42 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

The perversion of knowledge by social Darwinists is of a different
type than say, the perversion of Nobel's discoveries. In the latter
case, the science was left intact as it was applied in ways Nobel
disapproved. In the former case, the science behind Darwinian
Evolution has little actual association to what passes for science in
social Darwinism. Social Darwinism isn't even wrong.

[Burkhard]

On Saturday, October 26, 2013 6:29:01 PM UTC+1, Ray Martinez wrote:
snip>

>
>
> Honest scholars have always known that Darwinism inspired the Holocaust.

Honest historians go where the evidence leads, and that is not to Darwin.
The Nazis, just like you, misidentified the scientific thery
of evolution with the philosophical theory of with "materialism".

Now, it is not easy to determine what exactly the Nazis believed in,
but what they hated was pretty clear, and materialism was
pretty high on the list.

Their chief ideologist, Rosenberg, in "The Mythos of the 20th
century", one of the main ideological foundations of Nazism, said
e.g. that the crude positivism and materialism" needed to be overcome
by the "religion of the blood". Mysticism and metaphysical notions
dominated his and thier ideas, which is why the metaphysical babbler
Heidegger was courted, te positivists and materialist philosophers of
the Vienna circle actively prosecuted, fired or in the case of Schlick
murdered.

The same hostility to materialism resulted in attackes on Darwin
and his German promoter Haeckel. Here the Nazis in their own words;

Günther Hecht, an
official from the NSDAP Rassenpolitischen Amt (roughly Department for
Race Policies wrote:

"The common position of materialistic monism is
philosophically rejected completely by the völkisch-biological view of
National Socialism. [. . .] The party and its representatives must
not only reject a part of the Haeckelian conception—other parts of it
have occasionally been advanced—but, more generally, every internal
party dispute that involves the particulars of research and the
teachings of Haeckel must cease.( Günther Hecht, “Biologie und
Nationalsozialismus,” Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Naturwissenschaft 3
(1937–1938): 280–90, at 285.

This Journal was at the time the “Organ
of the Reich’s Section Natural Science of the Reich’s Students
Administration", so statements there had particular impact on teaching
and the science curriculum

In the same issue, Kurt Hildebrandt,, another party official, wrote
(my rough translation again) We have to reject Haeckel's simplistic
assumption that philosophy reached its pinnacle in the mechanistic
solution to the world puzzles through Darwin’s descent theory.”

>While Darwinists were busy ratifying natural selection as the main agent in >the 1940s, Hitler walked the walk and was in the field selecting his perceived >enemies for extinction.

That would then be artificial selection, something farmers have
been doing for millennia before Darwin. Artificial selection, unlike
natural selection, is teleological and goal driven - and Hitler had pretty
clear (and weird) ideas what he God-given goal of history.
was.

Unsurprisingly, you don't find a single biologist amongst the
participants at the Wannsee conference that planned the Holocaust,
but in addition to professional soldiers,business man and
lots of lawyers also a theologian (Georg Leibbrandt) and
a couple of farmers

same with the inner circle of the Nazi party. No scientists,
nor any indication that there was an interest in or
understanding of science. Those with higher
degrees had them in law or the humanities, especially
German literature or history. Lots of lawyers, small business
owners and a significant number of people who either were farmers
or had degrees in agriculture. Martin Borman; SS Gerneral von dem Bach-Zelewski; Herbert Backe, responsible for the "Hunger plan"
to starve people in the occupied eastern territories to death;
Viktor Brack, responsible for the Euthanasia programme T4;
Hans Hefelmann (Euthanasia of children); Walther Darré, minister
under Hitler and one of the leading "blood and soil" ideologists)
Heinrich Himmler, etc etc.

So if you really want to look for inspiration, you need not
look any further than to a farmer or cattle breeder who kills
weak young to strengthen the herd.

Darwin is not needed, and with his emphasis on common descent
(activel rejected by the Nazis for obvious reasons) and the
relativistic, non goal driven nature of natural selection,
actively in conflict

>
> Empowered by the so called "fact of evolution" and the falsity of Genesis and Divine inspiration, the Nazi war machine acted as if no God exists, murdering tens of millions in cold blood.

The OT and its attitude to killing your enemies gave more than enough
foundations for the Nazis. While Haeckel's monist society that also
promoted Darwinism was prohibited,

a group actively supported by contrast was the Kepler bund, an
organisastion set up to combat Haeckel and Darwin. And what do
we find in their writings:

Kepler Bund, set up
explicitly to counter Haeckel's monists and with the sole role of
fighting his ideas from a Christian perspective (very unlike Haeckel's
monists, who had many prominent Jewish members, Jews did not need to
apply)

„The leadership of the Bund are man conscious of their German nature,
who have realised that the type of world view that is needed today
must not just encompass recognition of the real world, and a to give
true credit to true religious-ethical convictions but also must be
compatible with the German nature. We see salvation only in a
synthesis of these there elements: Realism, religion (Christianity)
and German character […].“ It is therefore not a violation of
Christian doctrine if we learn in future to prevent the birth of
disabled people, and to support the increased procreation of high-
value bloodlines […]“. (Bavink, B. (1928): Zweck und Ziel des
Keplerbundes in der Gegenwart. Unsere Welt 20 (9), p.257, my
translation)

Martin Luther, of course, had argued that disabled children had
no soul and were mere "lumps of flesh2 posessed by demons, and
hence advocated their murder (Table talks 4513 and 5207)
The secular authorities however were unwilling to follow him
in the 16th century - until his ideas for euthanasia got
revived by the Nazis.
NS-expert Werner Catel quoted 1940 Luther's speeches
as justification to kill 16.000 disabled children, agreeing
with him that they "had no free will and no personality".
in 1964, in their trials for murder, Werner Heyde and
Hans Hefelmann, also members of action T4
cited again Luther's speeches as justification for
their deeds.
(Luther-Gesellschaft (Hrsg.): Luther. Zeitschrift der
Luther-Gesellschaft, 35. Jahrgang 1964, Bd. 1, p. 81)

The strategy helped, Hefelman got a disgustingly low
sentence of just 2 years

>
> Most Evolutionists, of course, suppress and deny the facts seen above, who could blame them? But unpopular truth is still truth despite the fact that the Evolutionists control Education, the Courts, and the Microphone. There will always be people who will preserve truth no matter how unpopular and unpleasant.

Yeah, which is why you always back up your claims with actual evidence,
while never ignoring the direct disproves of your claims like the ones above, right?

>
> Ray (anti-evolutionist)

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, October 31, 2013 10:21:16 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:47:38 -0700, the following appeared
>
> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 11:09:31 -0700 (PDT), the following
>
> >appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>
> ><pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >
>
> >>On Saturday, October 26, 2013 8:03:12 PM UTC-7, Desertphile wrote:
>
> >>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:55:29 -0700 (PDT), jspa...@linuxquestions.net
>
> >>>
>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> > Darwin inspired Hitler: Lies they teach in Texas
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Actually Martin Luther inspired Hitler.
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>I didn't know that the most infamous mass murderer in modern times was a Lutheran?
> >>
> >
>
> >Non sequitur. I'm inspired by George Washington and Thomas
>
> >Jefferson, but I'm neither a politician nor a slaveowner in
>
> >Virginia.
>
>
>
> And once more Ray is silent when refuted...

I've been silent because I don't see a point, Bob.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Richard, an Evolutionist, has the intergity to admit to a link with white supremacy. Some Evolutionists do not attempt to suppress the ugly truth. And there are plenty of other Evolutionists who admit that Darwinism inspired Hitler and the Holocaust as well.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 5:41:44 PM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
> On Thursday, October 31, 2013 12:10:38 AM UTC, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> <sni>
>
> >
>
> > Luther advocated what he advocated for warped theological reasons; Hitler advocated what he advocated for racial superiority reasons.
>
>
>
> potaahto-potayto
>

Only an Atheist would claim no difference. Honest people see otherwise.

>
>
> > The fact that you attempt to misrepresent, and the fact that you would try >and connect Hitler with Luther while bypassing Darwin clearly demonstrates the Atheist agenda in action.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > And it is quite noticeable that you've evaded the quote from scholarship (pasted upthread) that says Hitler was a Darwinian. And you'd be hard pressed to find a Bible with Hitler's name on it, or a picture of him attending Church.
>
>
>
> here are a couple of him doing just that:
>
> http://www.flyingchariotministries.com/nazisandthechurch.htm

What is the name of the scholar behind this website?

How do we know that the one or two relevant photos match-up with the descriptions provided? How do we know that the assembly of Nazis was in front of a Church? and how do we know that the assembly is not a threat or a protest? And how do we know that the picture of Hitler in the Church door-way was because he was attending, as opposed to supervising the smearing of excrement on the altar? Would you like a reference from a mainstream scholar that says Nazis smeared excrement on Church altars? Let me know.

Website author: I see a very angry Church-hating Jew lashing out. Probably a descendant of the German Jews that Luther lashed out against.

Of course these points are rhetorical.

Ray

[Mark Isaak]

Nominated for Post of the Month:

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Ray Martinez]

Scholarship on Hitler, Christianity & Darwinism

"Hitler 1936 - 1945: Nemesis" by Ian Kershaw (2000).

"In February 1937 Hitler made it plain to his inner circle that he did not want a 'Church struggle' at this juncture. The time was not ripe for it....The implication was clear: calm should be restored for the time being in relations with the Churches. Instead, the conflict with the Christian Churches intensified. The anti-clericalism and anti-Church sentiments of the grass-roots Party activists simply could not be eradicated. Provincial Nazi leaders such as Gualeiter of Upper Bavaria....Adolf Wagner were often only too keen to keep the conflict on the boil. The eagerness of Party activists and local leaders ....to
break the Christian influence reinforced through denominational schools sustained the momentum at grass-roots level. It was met by determined (if ultimately unsuccessful) rearguard action of the clergy and churchgoing population. The stranglehold that the Churches maintained over the values and mentalities of large sections of the population was an obvious thorn is the side of a Movement with its own highly intolerant 'world-view,' which saw itself as making a total claim on soul as well as body. The assault on the practices and institutions of the Christian Churches was deeply embedded in the
psyche of National Socialism. Where the hold of the Church was strong, as in the backwaters of rural Bavaria, the conflict raged in villages and small towns with little prompting from on high.

At the same time, the activists could draw on the verbal violence of Party leaders toward the Churches for their encouragement. Goebbels's orchestrated attacks on the clergy....provided further ammunition. And, in turn, however much Hitler on some occasions claimed to want a respite in the conflict, his own inflammatory comments gave his immediate underlings all the licence they needed to turn up the heat in the 'Church struggle,' confident that they were 'working towards the Fuhrer.'

Hitler's impatience with the Churches prompted frequent outbursts of hostility. In early 1937, he was declaring that 'Christianity was ripe for destruction'....and that the Churches must yield to the primacy of the state, railing against any compromise with 'the most horrible institution imaginable'" (pgs 39, 40).

**********

"The Third Reich" by Michael Burleigh (2000).

"Nazi assaults on the clergy and Christianity were so crude - up to and including smearing excrement on altars and Chuch doors...." (p. 261).

**********

"The Third Reich In Power" (2005) by Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, Richard J. Evans.

"In July of 1935....a speaker told a meeting of the Nazi Students' League in Bernau: 'One is either a Nazi or a committed Christian.' Christianity he said, 'promotes the dissolution of racial ties and of the national racial community....We must repudiate the Old and the New Testaments, since for us the Nazi idea alone is decisive. For us there is only one example, Adolf Hitler and no one else'" (p.250).

"The mother of a twelve year-old Hitler Youth found the following text in his pocket....it was also sung in public by the Hitler Youth at the 1934 Nuremberg Party Rally:

We are the jolly Hitler Youth, We don't need any Christian truth. For Adolf Hitler, out Leader always is our interceder....We follow not Christ but Horst Wessel....I'm not a Christian, nor a Catholic. I go with the SA through thin and thick

Not the cross they sang, but 'the swastika is redemption on earth'" (p. 250-51).

"A more consistently paganist figure in the Nazi elite was the Party's agricultural expert Richard Walther Darre, whose ideology of 'blood and soil' made such a powerful impression on Heinrich Himmler....Himmler in his turn abandoned his early Christian faith under Darre's influence. In Himmler's plans for the SS after 1933....As an SS plan put it in 1937: 'We live in the age of the final confrontation with Christianity. It is part of the mission of the SS
to give the German people over the next fifty years the non-Christian ideological foundations for a way of life appropriate to their own character.'....The families of SS men were ordered by Himmler not to celebrate Christmas....Christianity, Himmler was to declare on 9 June 1942, was 'the greatest of plagues'" (p. 251-52).

[Martin Bormann described as] "the energetic and strongly anti- Christian head of Rudolf Hess's office....the Nazi Party was on the way to severing all its ties with organized Christianity by the end of the 1930s" (p.252-53).

[Michael Siemon]

Second...

In article <l4uu7e$crq$1...@dont-email.me>,

Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

> Nominated for Post of the Month:
>
> On 10/31/13 3:48 PM, Burkhard wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 26, 2013 6:29:01 PM UTC+1, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > snip>
> >>
> >>
> >> Honest scholars have always known that Darwinism inspired the Holocaust.
> >
> > Honest historians go where the evidence leads, and that is not to Darwin.
> > The Nazis, just like you, misidentified the scientific thery
> > of evolution with the philosophical theory of with "materialism".

...

[Ray Martinez]

Imagine that; CHRISTIAN man Michael Siemon stands with the Atheists against Luther and the Church! Imagine Michael defending a claim that Christ approves!

Could not dream of better evidence supporting a deluded Michael Siemon!

Ray

[*Hemidactylus*]

Whither Gobineau, Richard Wagner, or the infamous Houston Chamberlain?

One could argue Wagner's Ring operas inspired Hitler and the holocaust.
Can we blame Wagner for what actually happened?

Darwinism and Wagnerism don't kill people. People kill people.

But if forced to watch 16+ hrs of Wagner at Bayreuth I could very well
die of acute German lyric poisoning.


--
*Hemidactylus*

[*Hemidactylus*]

Seconded. Anyone who knows enough to add Alfred Rosenberg into the
discussion of the origins of Nazism has far more on the ball than Ray.


--
*Hemidactylus*

[Ray Martinez]

Hemi, an Atheist-Evolutionist, makes a partisan point.

[shoulder-shrug]

Ray (Christian-Paleyan IDist)

[*Hemidactylus*]

Read up on Gobineau, Wagner, Chamberlain (not Neville), and Rosenberg
and think deeply before kneejerk assumptions about the blame to place on
Darwin and others like Nietzsche.

I suggest _Metapolitics_ by Peter Vierick as a start. I think I've done
that before to no avail:

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/metapolitics-peter-robert-edwin-viereck/1102737052?ean=9781258144715

You seem overly convinced Darwin is to blame for everything without
taking a step back and critically reflecting on your own underlying
assumptions.


--
*Hemidactylus*

[Richard Norman]

Darwinism has a clear link but Darwin and the science of evolutionary
biology absolutely does not.

The history of social Darwinism and eugenics is very clear. Galton,
the "father" of eugenics, was Charles Darwin's half-cousin and Erasmus
Darwin's grandson. He was very taken with Darwin's ideas. There is
no question about that. Eugenics had quite a following in the first
decades of the 20th century being a respected scientific academic
subject taught and researched at many universities. It, along with
the related notion of social Darwinism in general, did produce an
atmosphere in which notions of racial superiority could flourish but
its application that way was so abhorrent that even in the 1930's it
quickly waned because of the Nazi application of the idea. After WW
II, both social Darwinism and eugenics became generally discredited
although some pockets and some aspects still lingered.

Still, you do not blame the Wright brothers for creating aircraft
capable of fire-bombing or carrying nuclear bombs. You do not blame
Galvani, Volta, Franklin, Ampere, and Faraday for creating the
electric chair. Chemistry has produced poison gases and medicine has
created numerous toxins that kill people but the science cannot be
blamed for that. People perverted the ideas of Darwin to justify
racial superiority but racial superiority long preceded those
justifications and continues despite the proof that the justification
is wrong. And it takes a truly perverted mind to carry social
genetics, eugenics, and notions of racial superiority to an enormous
program of genocide. No, Darwin was not the inspiration for Hitler
even though you can trace a pathway to link the two.

I wrote what I wrote not to demonstrate the link but rather to
emphasize that scientists must be ever vigilant to ensure that their
ideas never again be misappropriated in the cause of evil.

[jillery]

So you see no point in suggesting that Hitler was a Lutheran. I
suppose that's progress of a sorts.

Hitler used multiple sources to rationalize Nazism, none of them with
any fidelity and coherence.

[Michael Siemon]

In article <fb8f73ea-a11f-4d48...@googlegroups.com>,

Luther was a major figure in Western Christianity, but he was also a
raging and vicious anti-Semite (which is about the only reason the Nazis
had any use for him...). Luther is not Christ, in case you hadn't
noticed. There are Lutheran traditions I admire greatly, and others
(e.g. Missouri Synod in America -- my early childhood church) I very
much abhor. It was "Christians" like those (and, I might say, like you)
who drove me to atheism at age 14. It was deeper Christian traditions,
and the witness of real saints and honest Christians who led me out of
a somewhat narrowly sectarian experience as an atheist. Since we are now
approaching All Saints Day, I will simply point to that great "cloud of
witness" as my grounding in Christianity. _Your_ testimony seems to me
to point elsewhere.

[jillery]

Your conclusion above seems to be based on an impression that social
Darwinism is sound science but was simply misapplied in the 20th
Century. This might lead you to conclude that social Darwinism has
legitimate applications. Such a conclusion is incorrect.

Social Darwinism doesn't just pervert the application of science, it's
a perversion of the science itself. Darwinian Evolution is about
natural selection, but social Darwinism tosses out natural selection.
It's replaced with animal husbandry as applied to humans. In that
sense, social Darwinism stands Darwin's great analogy on its head.

Social Darwinism assumes human are capable of replacing natural
selection with their own ideas of what traits are best fit to survive,
and their own methods for passing on those traits to future
generations. If the social Darwinists of the 20th century had their
way, the world's population today would be dominated by idiots best
adapted to taking IQ tests. Social Darwinism is at best
pseudo-science, and at worst a transparent excuse for genocidal
racism.

[eridanus]

they were inspired by their desire of grabbing political power. Then, at
first sight, they needed to restrict the number of adversaries. As they
were fed from the start by conservative businessmen and millionaires,
they should promote a conservative agenda; a conservative point of view
mixed with other questions as patriotism, and the subjection of the
masses to their credo. Then, if some directives were sent to the members
of the party, about avoiding quarrels with church officials, in some
cases there were some confrontations, for a few Christians were liberals,
and dared to rebuke some Nazi chief here or there, some of the evil
actions they were doing. But in general, most of the Lutheran priests,
and even the Catholic church were rather scared, and like the Pope, were
unable to raise a voice against the crimes that were occurring. And I am
only considering the crimes committed before the gas chambers started
to work.

In general, Christian leaders are only brave to whip the backs of the poor.
As soon as a prince or a great leader appears in the scene, they forget
their duty to whip the sinner. I was reading about the life of Leonardo
de Vinci and he was involved in an investigation about sodomy with quite
a number of accused. As soon as the investigation founded that some Medici
princes were involved in the scandal, the case was hastily closed.

Then, in general, the church is persecuting minorities, like witches,
sodomites and Jews. It was its way to inspire fear in the masses.

Eridanus

[eridanus]

Wagner music is a lot better than it sounds.
Mark Twain

[J. J. Lodder]

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

> On 10/31/2013 08:27 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

[snip]

> > Richard, an Evolutionist, has the intergity to admit to a link with
> > white supremacy. Some Evolutionists do not attempt to suppress the ugly
> > truth. And there are plenty of other Evolutionists who admit that
> > Darwinism inspired Hitler and the Holocaust as well.
> >
> Whither Gobineau, Richard Wagner, or the infamous Houston Chamberlain?
>
> One could argue Wagner's Ring operas inspired Hitler and the holocaust.
> Can we blame Wagner for what actually happened?
>
> Darwinism and Wagnerism don't kill people. People kill people.
>
> But if forced to watch 16+ hrs of Wagner at Bayreuth I could very well
> die of acute German lyric poisoning.

Mistake. It is the wurst und bier that do you in,

Jan

[Greg Guarino]

Several notes:

You have, as is you habit, not responded directly to any of Burkhard's
points. That is the mark of a weak position.

You have quoted a (very few) secondary sources, while Burkhard has used
many primary (nazi-linked) sources.

Even your own sources argue mostly that the Nazis were against the
Church, not any conception of God at all; as a potential rival center of
power this could hardly be surprising.

You present exactly one contemporary secondary source who opines that
the Nazis felt they were furthering a "Darwinian" dialectic of some
sort, while Burkhard presents much primary evidence that they rejected
Darwinian ideas.

And lastly, let's suppose against all odds that you are correct: The
Nazis, ignorant of thousands of years of botany and animal husbandry,
discovered the idea of selective breeding only from Darwin (and ignored
the inconvenient bits about the Master Race having the same origins as
the Untermenschen, apes, fish, worms and bacteria) What of it? Human
beings have used all manner of ideas - even true ones - to support
their own aims, no matter how much they had to twist them in the process.

[Roger Shrubber]

Ray, you ignored all of Burkhard's points and then attack Michael
in a completely partisan manner.

The science in Darwin's evolution is responsible for social darwinism
to the exact extent that Newton's gravity is responsible for the
bombing of London by the Nazis.

However, you repeatedly assert that Darwin did more than address the
consequences of reproduction of heritable differences and the
natural history of life. You repeatedly assert he was attacking
theos. In that context, Burkhard destroyed your point because he
showed that the Nazis were absolutely not in agreement with
Darwin's take on Naturalism but instead rejected it, vehemently.

Gravity describes how things do fall but does not advocate falling.
Evolution describes what happens but does not say what should happen.
Silly people confuse is and ought, or malicious people manipulate
knowledge for their own ends. Evil men have used religion as an
excuse for their inhumanity. Evil men have used atheism as an excuse
for their inhumanity. This says something about evil men, not religion
or athism.

Don't be an evil man Ray. Don't use your crusade to attack people
who see things differently.

[Will in New Haven]

Why would that be an admission?" if Darwin's work _did_ influence or inspire Hitler and evolution happened, then evolution happened (and is happening and will happen) no matter what bad behavior it's discoverer is alleged to have inspired.

I think your claim that it influenced Hitler has been well-refuted here but, at the end, it doesn't matter.

There is never going to be a binding public-opinion poll on the subject of evolution, Ray. Evolution, like the rest of the natural world, does not depend on what you believe, what I believe or what people in general believe.

It's not Tinkerbell.

--
Will in New Haven

[Desertphile]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 11:09:31 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, October 26, 2013 8:03:12 PM UTC-7, Desertphile wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:55:29 -0700 (PDT), jspa...@linuxquestions.net
> > wrote:

> > > Darwin inspired Hitler: Lies they teach in Texas

> > Actually Martin Luther inspired Hitler.

> I didn't know that the most infamous mass murderer in modern times was a Lutheran?

I did not know that either. George Bush2 is not Lutheran.

--
"Poor horse, she only has one teat." -- w0rstfest
"That's a penis." -- Desertphile

[Robert Carnegie]

On Friday, 1 November 2013 02:44:46 UTC, jillery wrote:
> So you see no point in suggesting that Hitler was a Lutheran.
> I suppose that's progress of a sorts.

For whom?

I think the point was covered that he'd be a Catholic Lutheran.
If that's possible.

[Burkhard]

On Friday, 1 November 2013 00:40:48 UTC, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 5:41:44 PM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, October 31, 2013 12:10:38 AM UTC, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> >
>
> > <sni>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Luther advocated what he advocated for warped theological reasons; Hitler advocated what he advocated for racial superiority reasons.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > potaahto-potayto
>
> >
>
>
>
> Only an Atheist would claim no difference. Honest people see otherwise.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > The fact that you attempt to misrepresent, and the fact that you would try >and connect Hitler with Luther while bypassing Darwin clearly demonstrates the Atheist agenda in action.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > And it is quite noticeable that you've evaded the quote from scholarship (pasted upthread) that says Hitler was a Darwinian. And you'd be hard pressed to find a Bible with Hitler's name on it, or a picture of him attending Church.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > here are a couple of him doing just that:
>
> >
>
> > http://www.flyingchariotministries.com/nazisandthechurch.htm
>
>
>
> What is the name of the scholar behind this website?

Pretty irrelevant. You wanted photos, I gave you photos. I
]did not endorse or recommend the text that is next to them.

The photos speak for themselves

>
> How do we know that the one or two relevant photos match-up with the descriptions provided?

By looking at the photos, i'd say. OK, a very basic knowledge
of architecture and history would be needed to interpret them,
but I'd hope any 6th grader would be able to do this

> How do we know that the assembly of Nazis was in front of a Church?

Ah, I forget that you are from the US where strange buildings
can be churches. In European architecture, it is quite simple
to identify a church building, and all those on the pictures
are famous enough that as I said any 14 year old should be
able to identify them from the images

> and how do we know that the assembly is not a threat or a protest?

By the smiling faces of the priests, and the cordial handshakes?

>And how do we know that the picture of Hitler in the Church door-way was because he was attending, as opposed to supervising the smearing of excrement on the altar? Would you like a reference from a mainstream scholar that says Nazis smeared excrement on Church altars? Let me know.

Only if it makes you really happy. It would not surprise me,
especially not if the SA in the earlier years was involved. Doesn't
help your point a bit though. That's just classical iconoclasm, and
for that too there is ample historical precedent within Christianity
and the reformation in particular.

In fact, the desecration of catholic churches and the artwork within
was so prevalent in Germany and the Netherlands during the reformation
that the Church and German words for it, Bildersturm or Beeldenstorm,
made it into the English language as terms for "iconoclastic fury"
In England we would later find the same

Here a description of protestants looting a catholic church,
in Amsterdam in 1559, including the
use of excrement:

"... these fresh followers of this new preaching threw down the graven and defaced the painted images, not only of Our Lady but of all others in the town. They tore the curtains, dashed in pieces the carved work of brass and stone, brake the altars, spoilt the clothes and corporesses, wrested the irons, conveyed away or brake the chalices and vestiments, pulled up the brass of the gravestones, not sparing the glass and seats which were made about the pillars of the church for men to sit in. ... the Blessed Sacrament of the altar ... they trod under their feet and (horrible it is to say!) shed their stinking piss upon it"
(Miola, Robert S., Early modern Catholicism: an anthology of primary sources, Oxford University Press, 2007 p. 59)

Of course, these protestants were not against the Christian religion per se,
they were against Catholics, and the desecration of each others churches
remained a feature of the conflict until today in Northern Ireland.

So Hitler permitting or ordering actions against catholic church
buildings in particular are not an indication that he did not
get his ideas from the religious tradition of Germany, quite on
the contrary, it fits perfectly well in the role he had apparently
cast for himself, as a latter day Luther who would attack the Church
organisation for having moved away from the "true" faith.

Religious fringe, but still religious.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:28:00 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:20:42 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 22:01:25 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by Richard Norman
>><r_s_n...@comcast.net>:

>>
>>><mercifully snip more than a thousand lines almost all blank>
>>>
>>>The sad fact is that we cannot deny the influence of "Darwinism" on
>>>the development of social Darwinism, eugenics, and ultimately fascist
>>>racism. There are ample academic and scientific sources to make the
>>>connection including, for example
>>>
>>>"Biological Science and the Roots of Nazism" in American Scientist
>>> http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/27854963
>>>
>>>Progress through Racial Extermination: Social Darwinism, Eugenics,
>>> and Pacifism in Germany, 1860-1918
>>> http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1433326
>>>
>>>Racism as social policy: The Nazi ‘euthanasia’ programme, 1939–1945 in
>>>Ethnic and Racial Studies
>>>
>>>http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01419870.1991.9993722#.UnG4FGzD_4Y
>>>
>>>The Origins of Social Darwinism in Germany, 1859-1895 in J. History of
>>>Ideas
>>> http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2710024
>>>
>>>Darwin, social Darwinism and eugenics in German Studies Review
>>> http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1433326
>>>
>>>It is well understood that social Darwinism was an utter perversion of
>>>Darwinian biological evolution but it is also unfortunately true that
>>>people adopted Darwin's ideas to support notions of racial superiority
>>>and eugenics widely in Europe in the era before the rise of the Nazis.
>>>The roots were well established in Germany at the time.
>>

>>Sure; it wasn't the first time knowledge was misapplied to
>>support a social or political agenda, and it almost
>>certainly won't be the last. But blaming Darwin for the
>>perversion and subsequent misuse of his work is the worst
>>sort of "blame the victim" hyperbole.
>
>
>The perversion of knowledge by social Darwinists is of a different
>type than say, the perversion of Nobel's discoveries. In the latter
>case, the science was left intact as it was applied in ways Nobel
>disapproved. In the former case, the science behind Darwinian
>Evolution has little actual association to what passes for science in
>social Darwinism. Social Darwinism isn't even wrong.

Agreed.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:22:10 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Thursday, October 31, 2013 10:21:16 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:

>> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:47:38 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>> >On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 11:09:31 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> ><pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>> >>On Saturday, October 26, 2013 8:03:12 PM UTC-7, Desertphile wrote:

>> >>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:55:29 -0700 (PDT), jspa...@linuxquestions.net
>> >>> wrote:

>> >>> > Darwin inspired Hitler: Lies they teach in Texas

>> >>> Actually Martin Luther inspired Hitler.

>> >>I didn't know that the most infamous mass murderer in modern times was a Lutheran?

>> >Non sequitur. I'm inspired by George Washington and Thomas
>> >Jefferson, but I'm neither a politician nor a slaveowner in
>> >Virginia.

>> And once more Ray is silent when refuted...

>I've been silent because I don't see a point, Bob.

The point was that your mischaracterization of the meaning
of "inspired" was due to either ignorance or intentional
misrepresentation of Desertphile's comment, and was thus a
non sequitur to that comment.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:43:59 +0200, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

But the Germans have some of the best bier, not the wurst.

[J. J. Lodder]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:43:59 +0200, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
> >*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/31/2013 08:27 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >[snip]
> >> > Richard, an Evolutionist, has the intergity to admit to a link with
> >> > white supremacy. Some Evolutionists do not attempt to suppress the ugly
> >> > truth. And there are plenty of other Evolutionists who admit that
> >> > Darwinism inspired Hitler and the Holocaust as well.
> >> >
> >> Whither Gobineau, Richard Wagner, or the infamous Houston Chamberlain?
> >>
> >> One could argue Wagner's Ring operas inspired Hitler and the holocaust.
> >> Can we blame Wagner for what actually happened?
> >>
> >> Darwinism and Wagnerism don't kill people. People kill people.
> >>
> >> But if forced to watch 16+ hrs of Wagner at Bayreuth I could very well
> >> die of acute German lyric poisoning.
> >
> >Mistake. It is the wurst und bier that do you in,
>
> But the Germans have some of the best bier, not the wurst.

Nah, it takes a Belgian to make really good bier,

Jan

[eridanus]

It is quite possible, but in general, this idea of antisemitism
was a sort of folkloric attitude in many Germans. It could had been
older than the writes of Luther on this topic. Then, anytime anything
was wrong... well, it was an old ritual to sacrifice some people or
other, to placate the wrath of the gods. It was some sort of "pharmakos".
I think the Mycenaean Greeks had some of these customs. Sometimes the
king had to sacrifice a daughter, like in the story of Iphigenia, but
it was rather more common to sacrifice a any pariah. All the populace
participated in this ritual, pushing and hitting the poor man; spiting
on his face and smearing him with animal feces. The ceremony ended
pushing the victim off a high cliff to kill him.

In medieval times it was rather common to accuse the Jews of any serious
problem the land or the people had. So, not any need to be a cultivated
person able to read Luther, or any high brow scholar with a tendency
to sadism, or antisemitism, or a combination of both.

Eridanus

[eridanus]

an extraordinary reply. Perfect.
eri