Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Darwin reader: Darwin’s racism
UD ^ | February 14, 2009 | Denyse O'Leary

Posted on 02/24/2009 7:04:56 PM PST by GodGunsGuts

14 February 2009

Darwin reader: Darwin’s racism

O'Leary

In the face of systematic attempts to efface from public view, Darwin’s racism, a friend writes to offer quotes from Darwin’s Descent of Man:

Savages are intermediate states between people and apes:

“It has been asserted that the ear of man alone possesses a lobule; but ‘a rudiment of it is found in the gorilla’ and, as I hear from Prof. Preyer, it is not rarely absent in the negro.

“The sense of smell is of the highest importance to the greater number of mammals–to some, as the ruminants, in warning them of danger; to others, as the Carnivora, in finding their prey; to others, again, as the wild boar, for both purposes combined. But the sense of smell is of extremely slight service, if any, even to the dark coloured races of men, in whom it is much more highly developed than in the white and civilised races.”

“The account given by Humboldt of the power of smell possessed by the natives of South America is well known, and has been confirmed by others. M. Houzeau asserts that he repeatedly made experiments, and proved that Negroes and Indians could recognise persons in the dark by their odour. Dr. W. Ogle has made some curious observations on the connection between the power of smell and the colouring matter of the mucous membrane of the olfactory region as well as of the skin of the body. I have, therefore, spoken in the text of the dark-coloured races having a finer sense of smell than the white races….Those who believe in the principle of gradual evolution, will not readily admit that the sense of smell in its present state was originally acquired by man, as he now exists. He inherits the power in an enfeebled and so far rudimentary condition, from some early progenitor, to whom it was highly serviceable, and by whom it was continually used.”

[From Denyse: Decades ago, I distinguished myself by an ability to smell sugar in coffee. It wasn't very difficult, with a bit of practice, and it helped to sort out the office coffee orders handily. My best guess is that most people could learn the art if they wanted to. Most human beings don't even try to develop their sense of smell - we are mostly occupied with avoiding distressing smells or eliminating or else covering them up. I don't of course, say that we humans would ever have the sense of smell of a wolf, but only that Darwin's idea here is basically wrong and best explained by racism. ]

“It appears as if the posterior molar or wisdom-teeth were tending to become rudimentary in the more civilised races of man. These teeth are rather smaller than the other molars, as is likewise the case with the corresponding teeth in the chimpanzee and orang; and they have only two separate fangs. … In the Melanian races, on the other hand, the wisdom-teeth are usually furnished with three separate fangs, and are generally sound; they also differ from the other molars in size, less than in the Caucasian races.

“It is an interesting fact that ancient races, in this and several other cases, more frequently present structures which resemble those of the lower animals than do the modern. One chief cause seems to be that the ancient races stand somewhat nearer in the long line of descent to their remote animal-like progenitors.”

[From Denyse: The nice thing about teeth is that, if they give trouble, they can simply be pulled. I would be reluctant to found a big theory on the size or convenience of teeth, given that this  fact must have occurred to our ancestors many thousands of years ago.]

“It has often been said, as Mr. Macnamara remarks, that man can resist with impunity the greatest diversities of climate and other changes; but this is true only of the civilised races. Man in his wild condition seems to be in this respect almost as susceptible as his nearest allies, the anthropoid apes, which have never yet survived long, when removed from their native country.” [From Denyse: Native North Americans often perished from human diseases to which they had not become immune in childhood. That is probably unrelated to the inability of anthropoid apes to stand cold climates.]

This includes the degraded morals of lower races:

“The above view of the origin and nature of the moral sense, which tells us what we ought to do, and of the conscience which reproves us if we disobey it, accords well with what we see of the early and undeveloped condition of this faculty in mankind…. A North-American Indian is well pleased with himself, and is honoured by others, when he scalps a man of another tribe; and a Dyak cuts off the head of an unoffending person, and dries it as a trophy. … With respect to savages, Mr. Winwood Reade informs me that the negroes of West Africa often commit suicide. It is well known how common it was amongst the miserable aborigines of South America after the Spanish conquest. … It has been recorded that an Indian Thug conscientiously regretted that he had not robbed and strangled as many travellers as did his father before him. In a rude state of civilisation the robbery of strangers is, indeed, generally considered as honourable.”

“As barbarians do not regard the opinion of their women, wives are commonly treated like slaves. Most savages are utterly indifferent to the sufferings of strangers, or even delight in witnessing them. It is well known that the women and children of the North-American Indians aided in torturing their enemies. Some savages take a horrid pleasure in cruelty to animals, and humanity is an unknown virtue….. Many instances could be given of the noble fidelity of savages towards each other, but not to strangers; common experience justifies the maxim of the Spaniard, “Never, never trust an Indian.”

[From Denyse: If early modern Europeans in Canada had not trusted "Indians," they would all have died off pretty quickly.]

“The other so-called self-regarding virtues, which do not obviously, though they may really, affect the welfare of the tribe, have never been esteemed by savages, though now highly appreciated by civilised nations. The greatest intemperance is no reproach with savages.”

“I have entered into the above details on the immorality of savages, because some authors have recently taken a high view of their moral nature, or have attributed most of their crimes to mistaken benevolence. These authors appear to rest their conclusion on savages possessing those virtues which are serviceable, or even necessary, for the existence of the family and of the tribe,–qualities which they undoubtedly do possess, and often in a high degree.”

[From Denyse: Charles Darwin, let me introduce you to Hollywood, before you say any more silly things about the supposed immorality of "savages." ]

Making slavery understandable, though of course distasteful now:

“Slavery, although in some ways beneficial during ancient times, is a great crime; yet it was not so regarded until quite recently, even by the most civilised nations. And this was especially the case, because the slaves belonged in general to a race different from that of their masters.”

[From Denyse: Not really. In ancient times, slaves were typically unransomed captives in war, convicted criminals, or people who had fallen into irrecoverable debt. In Roman times, there would be nothing unusual about being a slave to someone of the same race as oneself. Slavery based on race alone was an early modern legal invention, aimed against blacks.]

Mass killings of savages is understandable as a type of species extinction:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

“The partial or complete extinction of many races and sub-races of man is historically known….When civilised nations come into contact with barbarians the struggle is short, except where a deadly climate gives its aid to the native race…. The grade of their civilisation seems to be a most important element in the success of competing nations. A few centuries ago Europe feared the inroads of Eastern barbarians; now any such fear would be ridiculous.”

“[Flinders Island], situated between Tasmania and Australia, is forty miles long, and from twelve to eighteen miles broad: it seems healthy, and the natives were well treated. Nevertheless, they suffered greatly in health….With respect to the cause of this extraordinary state of things, Dr. Story remarks that death followed the attempts to civilise the natives.” [--Obviously the problem was trying to civilize these barbarians!]

“Finally, although the gradual decrease and ultimate extinction of the races of man is a highly complex problem, depending on many causes which differ in different places and at different times; it is the same problem as that presented by the extinction of one of the higher animals.”

Of course the degradation extends to the intellectual:

“There is, however, no doubt that the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other,–as in the texture of the hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body …Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Every one who has had the opportunity of comparison, must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes. There is a nearly similar contrast between the Malays and the Papuans who live under the same physical conditions, and are separated from each other only by a narrow space of sea.”

[From Denyse: I would imagine that the aborigines of South America felt some resentment over the loss of their continent to invaders from Europe ... ]

” A certain amount of absorption of mulattoes into negroes must always be in progress; and this would lead to an apparent diminution of the former. The inferior vitality of mulattoes is spoken of in a trustworthy work as a well-known phenomenon; and this, although a different consideration from their lessened fertility, may perhaps be advanced as a proof of the specific distinctness of the parent races.”

“So far as we are enabled to judge, although always liable to err on this head, none of the differences between the races of man are of any direct or special service to him. The intellectual and moral or social faculties must of course be excepted from this remark.”

And… drum roll.., the main conclusion:

“The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely, that man is descended from some lowly organised form, will, I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many. But there can hardly be a doubt that we are descended from barbarians. The astonishment which I felt on first seeing a party of Fuegians on a wild and broken shore will never be forgotten by me, for the reflection at once rushed into my mind-such were our ancestors. These men were absolutely naked and bedaubed with paint, their long hair was tangled, their mouths frothed with excitement, and their expression was wild, startled, and distrustful. … He who has seen a savage in his native land will not feel much shame, if forced to acknowledge that the blood of some more humble creature flows in his veins.”

[From Denyse: Sounds like a local rave to me. Not my ancestors (who were, as it happens, rigidly correct people, but my 2009 fellow Torontonians.)]

“For my own part I would as soon be descended from …[a] monkey, or from that old baboon… –as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions.

[From Denyse: Yuh, I know. I know women who have divorced guys like that too ... but, when founding a theory in science, it strikes me that ... ]

And let’s not forget sexism!

“The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman–whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands…We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on ‘Hereditary Genius,’ that if men are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.”

“The greater intellectual vigour and power of invention in man is probably due to natural selection, combined with the inherited effects of habit, for the most able men will have succeeded best in defending and providing for themselves and for their wives and offspring.”

[From Denyse: Re women vs. men: Actually, if we leave Darwin's obsession with natural selection out of the matter for a moment, we can come up with a simple explanation for the difference between men's and women's achievements. Men are far more likely to win Nobel Prizes than women - but also far more likely to sit on Death Row.

For most normal achievements, women will do as well as men, given a chance. Women do just as well as men at being, say, a family doctor, an accountant, a real estate agent, a high school teacher, etc.

It's only in outstanding achievements - either for good OR for ill - that men tend to dominate. One way of seeing this is that the curve of women's achievements fits inside the curve of men's achievements, either way.

Natural selection does not explain this because most men who have outstanding achievements do not contribute a great deal to the gene pool as a consequence.

Either they produce few or no children, or their children do nothing outstanding. So Darwin did not really have a good explanation for this fact.

What should we do? Breeding of people and letting the weak die off:

"The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring."

"We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”

[From Denyse: But how would anyone know who the "worst animals" are among people?]



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: catholic; charles; christian; creation; darwin; evolution; goodgodimnutz; intelligentdesign; liberals; moralabsolutes; negros; prolife; racism; savage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-119 next last

1 posted on 02/24/2009 7:04:56 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Finny; vladimir998; Coyoteman; allmendream; LeGrande; GunRunner; cacoethes_resipisco; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 02/24/2009 7:05:44 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Hitler was a fan of Darwin....


3 posted on 02/24/2009 7:07:04 PM PST by conservative cat (America, you have been PWNED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Posting such facts about Darwin would get you banned on Little Green Footballs.
4 posted on 02/24/2009 7:07:16 PM PST by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Haven’t gone near them since I heard the news.


5 posted on 02/24/2009 7:08:46 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: conservative cat

And contrary to what the Evos would like us to believe, Hitler hated Christianity.


6 posted on 02/24/2009 7:09:35 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“And contrary to what the Evos would like us to believe, Hitler hated Christianity.”

Ok....finish your point.....


7 posted on 02/24/2009 7:13:04 PM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

The dude was a genius, way ahead of his times.


8 posted on 02/24/2009 7:13:38 PM PST by ExpatGator (Extending logic since 1961.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExpatGator

“The dude was a genius, way ahead of his times.”

You are, if you follow the logic of this thread, therefore a hitler-loving racist atheist if you believe in science.


9 posted on 02/24/2009 7:18:00 PM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Slavery based on race alone was an early modern legal invention, aimed against blacks.

Not really. Although it does depend on how you classify "race".

The Spartans certainly classed the Helots as a separate race although we would not.

The Gibeonites were considered a separate race from the Jews and while they were not exactly slaves they were "hewers of wood and drawers of water" i.e. forced service.

10 posted on 02/24/2009 7:19:56 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Faith Manages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I was just saying on another thread that Darwin was not anymore aware of the Germ Theory of Disease than others of his time.

In the next to last paragraph of the selection he says "..... who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox" ~ yet, today, we modern, civilized people know that being killed by smallpox has more to do with the virulence of the virus than from a "weak constitution".

Holding the victims of small-pox responsible for their own deaths is rather barbaric. Discussing characteristics of the different "brands" of human being was not then considered terribly "racist", if "racist" at all. We just discuss such things different these days ~ e.g. not in the presence of the subjects being discussed, and certainly not in public if the topic has been declared taboo by PC arbiters ~ even if failure to discuss results in the deaths of millions.

11 posted on 02/24/2009 7:20:52 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Chuck Darwin: a legitimate candidate for All-Time Loser.


12 posted on 02/24/2009 7:22:01 PM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946

Chuck, unlike most of the clergymen of his time and ours, at least had a fully functioning brain.


13 posted on 02/24/2009 7:22:47 PM PST by Clemenza (Remember our Korean War Veterans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear

That’s not “forced service” ~ it’s “caste difference”. Once you have an hereditary right to “draw water” no one drinks unless you allow them to have water.


14 posted on 02/24/2009 7:22:50 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

I prefer real logic.


15 posted on 02/24/2009 7:23:03 PM PST by ExpatGator (Extending logic since 1961.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Read the story. Other people drew water but the Gibeonites had to do it if the temple needed water. They did not have a right to draw water but the obligation to do it.

Saul tried to wipe them out during his reign which also argues against your premise.

16 posted on 02/24/2009 7:28:57 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Faith Manages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

The original Archie Bunker.

I get mad every time I read about this because the kids are always taught Darwin on Pot instead of Darwin on Speed. If they’re going to teach them this crap they really ought to teach where Chuckie was coming from.

Thanks for posting... the truth is out there. Way out there...


17 posted on 02/24/2009 7:33:22 PM PST by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Welcome to the brave new world...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservative cat; All

The Nazis were more in favor of Lamarck. I don’t really know why, perhaps they did not like the idea that “lower races” could become superior in a different environment.

Darwin’s ideas can’t promote racism without being seriously twisted. For example, Darwin did many studies on Galapagos Finches. More data was gathered since 1973 by Peter and Rosemary Grant. They examined two different species and found that the survival of birds with different body and beak sizes depended on how the environment affected the availability of different sized seeds. During the harsh drought of 1977 the small seeds were quickly exhausted since they could be consumed by both the small and large beaks. As a result, there was strong selection for birds with larger, more powerful beaks that could crack the large seeds. During unusually rainy weather in 1984-85, the selection went in the opposite direction. There was an overabundance of small, soft seeds so the birds with small beaks were better adapted. As a result, there was strong selection for small beaks during those years.

The point of this is that racism is totally meaningless when it comes to the science of evolution. Neither bird was “superior” to the other. Each had its own niche.

The article posted above says more about the character of those men then about the theory itself.


18 posted on 02/24/2009 7:36:41 PM PST by Soothesayer (The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: conservative cat

Hitler’s middle name was “Elizabeth”


19 posted on 02/24/2009 7:38:57 PM PST by Oztrich Boy ( As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities. - D)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
Not to argue with you but there's not enough information provided to demonstrate that a "water drawing" caste didn't have the same sort of monopoly all other such castes have had down through the ages in all other human societies.

It's kind of like the members of the French nobility who vied to have the honor of taking King Louis' night soil out of his chambers. It meant that every day they would have ACCESS to the King himself right in the morning when he was fresh and before others could tell him gossip about themselves!

Sure, both of us would have been in there begging to be allowed to draw water for the Temple, particularly the Chief Priest!

20 posted on 02/24/2009 7:40:26 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

“Science leads you to killing people” - Ben Stein


21 posted on 02/24/2009 7:41:36 PM PST by Oztrich Boy ( As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities. - D)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ExpatGator

“I prefer real logic.”

on a GGG Darwin thread? Surely you jest!


22 posted on 02/24/2009 7:41:40 PM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Darwin was contracting his own work with those racist remarks. He is still one of the most important and influential natural historians of all time despite this stupidity.


23 posted on 02/24/2009 7:42:29 PM PST by Soothesayer (The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
==Ok....finish your point.....

Thursday, 22 November 2007

Adolf Hitler Hated Christianity

The claim is sometimes made by atheists that Hitler was a Christian, but Hitler rejected and hated Christianity.

Perhaps the most alarming and revealing truth in these quotes is that if you take Adolf Hitler's name away, they sound exactly like the standard quotes of just about any secular humanist.

The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States. All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler: Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7) 10th October, 1941, midday: "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43) 14th October, 1941, midday:

10th October, 1941, midday:

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:

"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:

"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

21st October, 1941, midday:

"Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea." (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight:

"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease." (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:

"Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:

"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity" (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday: "It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

24 posted on 02/24/2009 7:43:18 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946

I couldn’t agree more.


25 posted on 02/24/2009 7:44:26 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

“Science leads you to killing people”

That would imply evolution......


26 posted on 02/24/2009 7:45:16 PM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

No no.....

Your point was, if I’m not mistaken, that to believe in the scientific merits of evolution means you become Hitler.


27 posted on 02/24/2009 7:47:01 PM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene

Now that the Dems are in, they will no doubt be implementing Darwinism on speed.


28 posted on 02/24/2009 7:48:20 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
I will however argue with you. :) It is clearly laid out in the Book of Joshua that this was a punishment not an honor of any sort.

If you have not read the story I suggest that you do. It is very good with some nice twists.

29 posted on 02/24/2009 7:48:52 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Faith Manages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

They are the early stages... I only wish they hadn’t climbed out of the muck.


30 posted on 02/24/2009 7:55:01 PM PST by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Welcome to the brave new world...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

==Your point was, if I’m not mistaken, that to believe in the scientific merits of evolution means you become Hitler.

You are mistaken. Very few people have the burning hatred and sheer force of will to become a Hitler. But I would argue that the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism paves the way for a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao, a Chavez, an Ayers, an Obama, etc, etc.


31 posted on 02/24/2009 7:56:27 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
Have read ALL the stories ~ and you are accepting the standard rabbinical commentaries that've been appended to this one as constituting part of the original story.

That happens all through the Bible. Obviously members of the superior caste think of being part of a lower caste as being "a punishment". That doesn't mean it's a punishment.

Frankly, it's inconceivable that the Hebrews or Jews would operate a caste system differently than everyone else in the world.

32 posted on 02/24/2009 7:56:31 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

I jest, and don’t call me Surely.


33 posted on 02/24/2009 8:01:15 PM PST by ExpatGator (Extending logic since 1961.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
Papers reveal Nazi aim: End Christianity

Back to the Religion Under Attack Page

Wednesday, January 9, 2002

By Edward Colimore

INQUIRER STAFF WRITER

The fragile, typewritten documents from the 1940s lay out the Nazi plan in grim detail:

Take over the churches from within, using party sympathizers. Discredit, jail or kill Christian leaders. And re-indoctrinate the congregants. Give them a new faith - in Germany's Third Reich.

More than a half-century ago, confidential U.S. government reports on the Nazi plans were prepared for the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg and will be available online for free starting tomorrow - some of them for the first time.

These rare documents - in their original form, some with handwritten scrawls across them - are part of an online legal journal published by students of the Rutgers University School of Law at Camden.

"When people think about the Holocaust, they think about the crimes against Jews, but here's a different perspective," said Julie Seltzer Mandel, a third-year law student who is editor of the Nuremberg Project for the Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion.

"A lot of people will say, 'I didn't realize that they were trying to convert Christians to a Nazi philosophy.' . . . They wanted to eliminate the Jews altogether, but they were also looking to eliminate Christianity."

Mandel said the journal would post new Nuremberg documents about every six months, along with commentary from scholars across the world, on its Web site at www.lawandreligion.com.

The material is part of the archives of Gen. William J. Donovan, who served as special assistant to the U.S. chief of counsel during the International Military Tribunal after World War II. The trials were convened to hold accountable those responsible for war crimes.

The first installment - a 120-page report titled "The Nazi Master Plan: The Persecution of the Christian Churches" - was prepared by the Office of Strategic Services, a forerunner of the CIA.

"Important leaders of the National Socialist party would have liked to meet this situation [church influence] by complete extirpation of Christianity and the substitution of a purely racial religion," said an OSS report in July 1945. "The best evidence now available as to the existence of an anti-Church plan is to be found in the systematic nature of the persecution itself.

"Different steps in that persecution, such as the campaign for the suppression of denominational and youth organizations, the campaign against denominational schools, the defamation campaign against the clergy, started on the same day in the whole area of the Reich . . . and were supported by the entire regimented press, by Nazi Party meetings, by traveling party speakers."

A second online journal posting - to be added in about six months - will spotlight a secret OSS document, "Miscellaneous Memoranda on War Criminals," about the efforts of various countries to bring Nazis to justice.

A third installment - to be included in the journal in a year - focuses on translated, confidential Nazi documents. A message sent during the Kristallnacht ("Night of Broken Glass") pogrom of November 1938 is titled "Measures To Be Taken Against Jews Tonight." Authorities were given specific instructions: "Jewish shops and homes may be destroyed, but not looted. . . . Foreigners, even if Jewish, will not be molested."

Mandel, whose 80-year-old grandmother is a survivor of the Auschwitz concentration camp, said that allowing the public access to such documentation is "phenomenal."

"Some of the papers will answer questions that scholars have been asking for years," said Mandel, 29, of Berlin Borough, Camden County. "What did we know? When did we know it?"

The documents are part of the collection of the Cornell University School of Law library, which has about 150 bound volumes of Nuremberg trial transcripts and materials. They are housed at the school and are being cataloged.

"Gen. Donovan kept extensive, detailed records of Nazi atrocities," said Mandel, who taught at Triton High School in Runnemede and at Shawnee High School in Medford, where she led a course on "Literature of the Holocaust."

She and other journal editors - Daniel Bahk, Christopher Elliott, Ross Enders and Jessica Platt - examined hundreds of documents at Cornell before choosing those to be posted on the journal site. "The project could not be published in a conventional journal without losing the international accessibility that it demands," said Rayman Solomon, dean of the School of Law. "This student initiative will make a significant contribution to legal history scholarship while being of great interest and importance to the general public, especially at this time in our history."

Greg Baxter, marketing editor of the journal and a third-year Rutgers law student, said the online project was "definitely pertinent in light of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack" and Bush administration plans to hold a military tribunal to try the accused.

"The Nuremberg trials provide a framework for today's trials," said Baxter, 24, of Winslow, Camden County.


34 posted on 02/24/2009 8:03:26 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
In other words you are making things up with no historical basis.

As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts!

You have no support for this fantasy of yours so I will bid you good night.

35 posted on 02/24/2009 8:05:12 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Faith Manages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
Know what?

There's archaeological fact, and history, OUTSIDE of the Bible that does, in fact, have bearing on the material in the Bible, and vice versa.

It's a document of it's time and hardly just made up out of the air.

Remember, the Bible spoke of the ancient people we now know as the Sumerians ~ who invented writing. This was thought of as a fairy tail for centuries and then one day the Sumerians were discovered and everything everyone knew about the Bible has been subject to revision ever since.

I suggest you get out more, read more, look into what archaeologists have discovered, study what caste systems are all about, etc. You'll enjoy your Bible reading more if you know what it's talking about!

36 posted on 02/24/2009 8:09:31 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
You are, if you follow the logic of this thread, therefore a hitler-loving racist atheist if you believe in science.

I think the take away is that Darwin is not someone to be idolized. And I think it fair to say that some people do. Does it not seem this this particular insight into Darwin's thinking ought be a bit embarrassing for those with Darwin fish on the back of their cars?

However, I would agree with you to the extent that this has no real bearing on the veracity of the idea of common origin of species. The theory has "evolved" beyond Darwin's views on the matter in any case.

37 posted on 02/24/2009 8:10:48 PM PST by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer

==Darwin was contracting his own work with those racist remarks. He is still one of the most important and influential natural historians of all time despite this stupidity.

How do you figure. Darwin’s only earned degree was in theology. Darwin was not a scientist, nor did he practice the scientific method. He was a med-school dropout turned amateur naturalist. His book Origins didn’t contain any data. It was just a long argument based on practically nothing, except a few minor variations between finches. He didn’t even discover natural selection. That was discovered some 25 years ealier by a creationist. And yet, despite his lack of expertise, and his woeful lack of evidence, the science establishment allowed him to re-interpret the entire history of biology based on nothing more than a fantasy Darwin pulled out of his own head.


38 posted on 02/24/2009 8:12:19 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Sweetie, I have a minor in history.

Like I said you are building air castle fairy tales out of nothing but your own imagination. You do not even have your historical facts right in the post you just made.

Suggest that you go back and read a little more before you humiliate your self further.

39 posted on 02/24/2009 8:14:20 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Faith Manages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Not only was Darwin racist, he intended his theory to support the racist superiority of white races over Negroes— as the subtitle of ‘Origin of Species’ shows.

‘The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’

40 posted on 02/24/2009 8:18:08 PM PST by garjog (Used to be liberals were just people to disagree with. Now they are a threat to our existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
Slavery based on race alone was an early modern legal invention, aimed against blacks.

When you get down to brass tacks, slavery is the result of which can best perform -- albeit involuntarily -- the labor that is required. And most of that required work is plain old pick-and-shovel labor.

A quick example: In the early years,the Spaniards, in the new world (South America) discovered silver, and, to a less extent cane sugar. They did not want to work these themselves. The aborigines were to a point fair-to-poor slaves, generally lacking the stamina needed/demanded by the Spaniards. Hence the importation of negros, who were far more able to carry out the work required.

IOW, blacks became slaves -- the preferred slave stock --in the New World simply b/c they filled the need. It wasn't any "racist invention".

41 posted on 02/24/2009 8:18:55 PM PST by yankeedame ("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
A "minor"?

Wow!

I should roll over and show you my throat ~ but I won't ~ it's obvious you're not well-read enough to discuss this issue.

BTW, I'm not exactly a "fundie" anyway, so I read the Bible critically and with an eye to what a broad spectrum of opinion has had to say about different parts of it.

If you have a doctrinal difference, stick with it, but don't resort to attacks on my credentials ~ which are voluminous.

42 posted on 02/24/2009 8:20:08 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
A "minor"?

Wow!

I should roll over and show you my throat ~ but I won't ~ it's obvious you're not well-read enough to discuss this issue.

BTW, I'm not exactly a "fundie" anyway, so I read the Bible critically and with an eye to what a broad spectrum of opinion has had to say about different parts of it.

If you have a doctrinal difference, stick with it, but don't resort to attacks on my credentials ~ which are voluminous.

43 posted on 02/24/2009 8:20:10 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear

“a minor in history”

Interesting. A minor in history at most colleges just means that you took three or four extra courses. What kind of history I wonder? Was it ancient history?


44 posted on 02/24/2009 8:21:47 PM PST by garjog (Used to be liberals were just people to disagree with. Now they are a threat to our existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
Sweetie, I have a minor in history.

Ah, so we should respect your authority...but not the authority of written accounts by eye witnesses...got it.

45 posted on 02/24/2009 8:22:32 PM PST by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: conservative cat
Hitler was a fan of Darwin....

Lists of Banned Books, 1932-1939

-snip-

Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).

http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm

________________________________________

Der Fuhrer sez:

"The advantages of a personal and political nature that might arise from compromising with atheistic organizations would not outweigh the consequences which would become apparent in the destruction of general moral basic values. The national Government regards the two Christian confessions as the weightiest factors for the maintenance of our nationality."

-A. Hitler, Speech to the Reichstag, March 23, 1933

http://www.hitler.org/speeches/03-23-33.html

46 posted on 02/24/2009 8:24:07 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Wow. Almost like he thought of some races as a kind of "missing link":

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

47 posted on 02/24/2009 8:30:12 PM PST by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Yes he did sound like he was a eugenics supporter:

...but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed...

"Allow"?

The funny thing about naturalists, is that on one hand they think they know best how to make things right...and on the other hand, they reject the concept of right and wrong...I suppose whichever is convenient to their ego at the time (I speak from experience, I used to be trapped in that shallow, foolish, and disproved philosophy).

48 posted on 02/24/2009 8:44:21 PM PST by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

I’m no expert on history, but what I can tell from the time lines and common sense, what Hitler was saying in 1935 may have been a bit on the “political correct” side of the infamous man we now know him for.


49 posted on 02/24/2009 8:57:31 PM PST by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

He did do quite a few controlled experiments, such as the little known study of earthworms, seeds in salt water, the weed patch experiment just to name a few that I remember off the top of my head. Yes, he wasn’t the first to come up with natural selection and he did quite a few thought experiments to come up with “The Origin of Species”. Nevertheless, much of his work was verified in the 20th century by controlled experiments. See my first post for an example of a contemporary experiment regarding the famous Finch.


50 posted on 02/24/2009 8:59:41 PM PST by Soothesayer (The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-119 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson