_std.jpg)
Posted on 01/21/2005 1:16:43 AM PST by bd476
"German Christians who choose to homeschool their children are coming under continued enforcement action by the government, with one group of families fearful they may lose custody of their kids..."
[ Snip ]
"...The families are part of one of two Baptist denominations in the area that reportedly split over the issue of whether or not to continue homeschooling the younger generation..."
[ Snip ]
"...Guenther says if the parents' attempt to negotiate with government officials fails, the parents could have their children removed from their homes. Thirteen children are threatened with such action.
'The claim of the parents is that the local school is raising the children to be promiscuous and the girls prostitutes,' Guenther writes in an e-mail. 'Christian family values are being replaced by the state's moral values, which are designed to create autonomous individuals. The authority of the parents is not being recognized. As is typical, the parents are declared to be incompetent to raise their children. '
Guenther shares some of the concerns the Christian families have with state education in Germany..."
[ Snip ]
"...Relaxation techniques are being used in school, which include darkening the room and having the small children lie down beside each other, boys and girls together. Using a feather, they are to explore the neighboring child to find out where the most sensitive part of his body lies. They are encouraged to touch their neighbor anywhere on his body.
Fourth-grade students are shown videos of sexual intercourse and how a baby comes forth from this act. The narrator of the video assures the students that this sexual act feels good and is fun..."
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Give the libruls time, and this will be happening here.
I'll tell you this; let the State TRY to take my kids - you'll be reading about us in the Newspaper.
Hope you are wrong about it happening here. Yet some rather alarming stories keep coming out and the teachers always want more money.
Ping.
Ping.
They could always send them to a Christian school. Must be better than breaking the law and losing your kids.
But there the kids wouldn't learn that the evolution is a lie and God made all humans just 4000 years ago.
The world is probably more than 4000 or 6000 years old. But evolution IS a lie and worse than a lie; it's part of the gay/lesbian agenda.
In that case, these Baptists know what to do. They haven't found the promised land yet, and must look further. Say, Texas . . .
I know it might take a while for them to get over here, but I was thinking the same thing. Heck, if they do it right, change their name to Rodriguez, and come up south of Texas, they would fit right it--no questions asked.
Geology isn't a lie: the world is reliably 4.5 billion years old.
Evolution is an excellent theory that explains 95% of the facts to do with physical form. That's why I believe it. But Evolution being true doesn't mean what some people think it means.
The tremendous confusion with Evolution stems from the 19C when two very ignorant groups of Victorians declared war on each other based on the wrong-headed premise that Evolution somehow disproved the Christian Religion.
It doesn't. God created our physical forms in his own good time, and 4.5 billion years is about as long as it takes. As for what we ARE - beings with free will and immortal souls - evolution is silent on this issue.
Macroevolution has been disproven in numerous ways, but the fruit fly experiments alone suffice
As to whether or not Christianity and evolution can coexist, they can't. Sir Arthur Keith (Evolution and Ethics) said it best:
The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him the national "front" of Europe is also the evolutionary "front"; he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people. He has brought into
10.
modern life the tribal and evolutionary mentality of prehistoric times. Hitler has confronted the statesmen of the world with an evolutionary problem of an unprecedented magnitude. What is the world to do with a united aggressive tribe numbering eighty millions!
We must not lose sight of the purpose of our visit to Germany; it was to see how far modern evolutionary practice can provide us with a scientific basis for ethical or moral behavior. As a source of information concerning Hitler's evolutionary and ethical doctrines I have before me Mein Kampf, extracts from The Times covering German affairs during the last twenty years, and the monthly journal R.F.C. (Racio Political Foreign Correspondenee), published by the German Bureau for Human Betterment and Eugenics and circulated by that bureau for the enlightenment of anthropologists living abroad. In the number of that journal for July 1937, there appears in English the text of a speech given by the German Fuhrer on January 30, 1937, in reply to a statement made by Mr. Anthony Eden that "the German race theory" stood in the way of a common discussion of European problems. Hitler maintained his theory would have an opposite effect; "it will bring about a real understanding for the first time." "It is not for men," said the Fuhrer, "to discuss the question of why Providence created different races, but rather to recognize that it punishes those who disregard its work of creation." I may remark incidentally that in this passage, as in many others, the German Fuhrer, like Bishop Barnes and many of our more intellectual clergy, regards evolution as God's mode of creation. God having created races, it is therefore "the noblest and most sacred duty for each racial species of mankind to preserve the purity of the blood which God has given it." Here we have expounded the perfectly sound doctrine of evolutionary isolation; even as an ethical doctrine it should not be condemned. No German must be guilty of the "greatest racial sin" that of bringing the fruits of hybridity into the world. The reproductive "genes" which circulate within the frontiers of Germany must be kept uncontaminated, so that they may work out the racial destiny of the German people without impediment. Hitler is also a eugenist. Germans who suffer from
11.
hereditable imperfections of mind or of body must be rendered infertile, so that "the strong may not be plagued by the weak." Sir Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics, taught a somewhat similar evolutionary doctrine namely, that if our nation was to prosper we must give encouragement to the strong rather than to the weak; a saving which may be justified by evolution, but not by ethics as recognized and practiced by civilized peoples. The liberties of German women are to be sacrificed; they must devote their activities to their households, especially to the sacred duty of raising succeeding generations. The birth rate was stimulated by bounties and subsidies so that the German tribe might grow in numbers and in strength. In all these matters the Nazi doctrine is evolutionist.
Hitler has sought on every occasion and in every way to heighten the national consciousness of the German people or, what is the same thing, to make them racially conscious; to give them unity of spirit and unity of purpose. Neighborly approaches of adjacent nations are and were repelled; the German people were deliberately isolated. Cosmopolitanism, liberality of opinion, affectation of foreign manners and dress were unsparingly condemned. The old tribal bonds (love of the Fatherland, feeling of mutual kinship), the bonds of "soil and blood," became "the main plank in the National Social program." "Germany was for the Germans" was another plank. Foreign policy was "good or bad according to its beneficial or harmful effects on the German folk now or hereafter." "Charity and humility are only for home consumption" a statement in which Hitler gives an exact expression of the law which limits sympathy to its tribe. "Humanitarianism is an evil . . . a creeping poison." "The most cruel methods are humane if they give a speedy victory" is Hitler's echo of a maxim attributed to Moltke. Such are the ways of evolution when applied to human affairs.
I have said nothing about the methods employed by the Nazi leaders to secure tribal unity in Germany methods of brutal compulsion, bloody force, and the concentration camp. Such methods cannot be brought within even a Machiavellian system of ethics, and yet may be justified by their evolutionary result.
12.
Even in that result we may harbor a doubt: can unity obtained by such methods be relied on to endure?
There are other aspects of Nazi policy which raise points which may be legitimate subjects of ethical debate. In recent years British men of science have debated this ethical problem: an important discovery having been made a new poison gas, for example is it not the duty of the discoverer to suppress it if there is a possibility of its being used for an evil purpose? My personal conviction is that science is concerned wholly with truth, not with ethics. A man of science is responsible for the accuracy of his observations and of his inferences, not for the results which may follow therefrom. Under no circumstances should the truth be suppressed; yet suppression and distortion of the truth is a deliberate part of Nazi policy. Every anthropologist in Germany, be he German or Jew, was and is silenced in Nazi Germany unless the Hitlerian racial doctrine is accepted without any reservation whatsoever. Authors, artists, preachers, and editors are undone if they stray beyond the limits of the National Socialist tether. Individual liberty of thought and of its expression is completely suppressed. An effective tribal unity is thus attained at the expense of truth. And yet has not the Church in past times persecuted science just in this Hitlerian way? There was a time, and not so long ago, when it was dangerous for a biologist to harbor a thought that clashed in any way with the Mosaic theory of creation.
No aspect of Hitler's policy proclaims the antagonism between evolution and ethics so forcibly as his treatment of the Jewish people in Germany. So strong are the feelings roused that it is difficult for even science to approach the issues so raised with an unclouded judgment. Ethically the Hitlerian treatment of the Jews stands condemned out of hand. Hitler is cruel, but I do not think that his policy can be explained by attributing it to a mere satisfaction of a lust, or to a search for a scapegoat on which Germany can wreak her wrath for the ills which followed her defeat of 1918. The Church in Spain subjected the Jews to the cruelty of the Inquisition, but no one ever sought to explain the Church's behavior by suggesting that she had a
13.
lust for cruelty which had to be satisfied. The Church adopted the Inquisition as a policy; it was a means of securing unity of mind in her flock. Hitler is an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his actions. When the Huguenots fled to Germany they mingled their "genes" with those of their host and disappeared as an entity. The Jews are made of other stuff: for two thousand years, living amid European communities, they have maintained their identity; it is an article of their creed, as it is of Hitler's, to breed true. They, too, practice an evolutionary doctrine. Is it possible for two peoples living within the same frontiers, dwelling side by side, to work out harmoniously their separate evolutionary destinies? Apparently Hitler believes this to be impossible; we in Britain and in America believe it to be not only possible, but also profitable.
It must not be thought that in seeking to explain Hitler's actions I am seeking to justify them. The opposite is the case. I have made this brief survey of public policy in modern Germany with a definite object: to show that Dr. Waddington is in error when he seeks to place ethics on a scientific basis by a knowledge of evolutionary tendencies and practice.
Chapter 4
Human Life: Its Purpose or Ultimate End
IN THE COURSE OF GATHERING INFORMATION concerning man's morality and the part it has played and is playing in his evolution, I found it necessary to provide space for slips which were labeled "Life: Its Ultimate and Proximate Purposes." Only those who have devoted some special attention to this matter are aware of the multitude of reasons given for the appearance of man on earth. Here I shall touch on only a few of them; to deal with all would require a big book. The reader may exclaim: Why deal with any of them! What has ultimate purpose got to do with ethics and evolution! Let a man with a clearer head and a nimbler pen than mine reply. He is Edward Carpenter, who wrote Civilization: Its Cause and Cure (1889).
14.
It is from the sixteenth edition (1923) I am to quote, p. 249:
If we have decided what the final purpose or Life of Man is, then we may say that what is good for that purpose is finally "good" and what is bad for that purpose is finally "evil."
If the final purpose of our existence is that which has been and is being worked out under the discipline of evolutionary law, then, although we are quite unconscious of the end result, we ought, as Dr. Waddington has urged, to help on "that which tends to promote the ultimate course of evolution." If we do so, then we have to abandon the hope of ever attaining a universal system of ethics; for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy. Dr. Waddington has not grasped the implications of Nature's method of evolution, for in his summing up (Nature, 1941, 150, p. 535) he writes "that the ethical principles formulated by Christ . . . are those which have tended towards the further evolution of mankind, and that they will continue to do so." Here a question of the highest interest is raised: the relationship which exists between evolution and Christianity; so important, it seems to me, that I shall devote to it a separate chapter. Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.
Oh, that doesn't sound like the Nazis at all
[/sarcasm]
With all due respect, are you series?
Understand no offense is meant but 'intelligent design' (God) and evolution are NOT exclusionary. The same holds true for the creation of Universe (and our solar system) and the "Big Bang" which occurred between 10 & 20 BILLION years ago. At this point in science physicists cannot get 'past' the 'singularity'. And 'someone' had to create the singularity - like say God. Even Stephen Hawkins has 'admitted' - posited the existence of God.
BTW, I didn't know Darwin was gay?!? (just kidding)
There are any number of things in the living world which obviously could not evolve since the entire basis of their existence would have to be there on the first day and any intermediate steps would be non-viable.
Birds are one such, since the wings and flight feathers would be useless until it was all there. In fact wings anywhere near large enough to fly with would be a sufficient disadvantage to guarantee the extinction of the organism unless the thing could fly.
Whale sonar is another such item. Mammalian eyesight and smell would be utterly worthless in deep/open water so that the sonar had to totally work on day one. Baleen is another thing which cannot evolve; there's no plausible way to get from killing and eating large fish and animals to straining for plankton in a gradualistic manner and an animal which was suddenly mutated to having baleen instead of teeth would not know what to do with the baleen and perish in less than a day.
As to the age of the Earth itself, I fail to see how that's relevant to the question of evolution.
You have got to be kidding, it is already happening here.
Evolution is part of the gay/lesbian agenda? That is some hilarious stuff.
I gotta hear how that could be care to enlighten me?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.