Ben Stein: Science Leads to Killing People

[MaryJohnZ]

Continued post:
Barbarian you say I am rejecting truth. Please explain to me the specific truth I am rejecting.

You say the Galton Institute is not continuing classical eugenics.
Since you claim the Galton Institute has nothing to do with classical eugenics, what types of eugenics does it encourage? Simply because they are not 'classical eugenics" doesn’t mean they are good or moral eugenics. There page says they support explorations in birth control for one thing, something that is immoral when it separates the procreative act from the possibility of life. You have brought up ‘reformed eugenics’ before but have failed to ex-plain it. How can I accept something you say is good if you don’t explain it.

here is a quote from a talk given at the 1999 Galton Institute:

“The first century or two of the new millennium will almost certainly be a golden age for eugenics. Through application of new genetic knowledge and reproductive technologies…the major change will be to mankind itself…[T]echniques…such as…genetic manipulations are not yet efficient enough to be unquestionably suitable in therapeutic and eugenic application for humans. But with the pace of research it is surely only a matter of time, and a short time at that.”

Glayde Whitney, Professor, Department of Psychology, Florida State University, “Reproduction Technology for a New Eugenics,” paper for The Galton Institute conference Man and Society in the New Millennium, September 1999, published in The Mankind Quarterly (Vol. 40, No. 2, 1999), pages 179-192 and online at eugenics.net/papers/gw002.html

why should I see that as a good form of eugenics?

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

(Stein is denounced by Jewish groups for denying the cause of the Holocaust)

I really am trying here, and I would appreciate it if you would stop sprinkling insults along with your statements. This should be a respectful conversation.

Then don’t pretend I said things I didn’t. If it surprises you that people treat that as dishonesty, you need to think about it a bit.

You said some things are true and it is just hard to accept. In otherwords you are agreeing with Darwin that the human conscience was evolved the same way that physical characteristics evolved

No, I asked you what would be wrong with it, if God did it that way.

and that the human conscience is nothing more that a highly developed social mechanism…it has nothing to do with God’s imprint on the soul of what is right and wrong.

This is the kind of thing I was talking about. If you continually make up things I never said, and attribute them to me, why are you surprised that people would draw conclusions about you?

In other words the passage in the bible that says God has written His Law on the human heart is not true to you.

Another falsehood. He certainly did that. But you aren’t ready to accept that He did it His way.

My understanding is that a Catholic believes there is a universal law that is knowable to every person.

It is called “natural law.”

n English this term is frequently employed as equivalent to the laws of nature, meaning the order which governs the activities of the material universe…In its strictly ethical application - the sense in which this article treats it -the natural law is the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us…In the very constitution of his nature, he too has a law laid down for him, reflecting that ordination and direction of all things, which is the eternal law. The rule, then, which God has prescribed for our conduct, is found in our nature itself.
Catholic Encyclopia

This is what Darwin was saying, although of course science could only show what nature did, not Who was behind it.

I would say that Darwin was saying that the laws of conscience develop over time and thus are formed by culture and social relationships which is not the same thing is it?

That seems to be how God does it, yes.

So what is the uncomfortable turth you want me to recognize or accept?

The Church’s teaching on natural law.

That Darwin was right about how conscience in human beings was formed?

That God was right to do it that way.

That natural selection is the only means of God creating life?

Natural selection is not about creating life.

My second question is what is the ‘other source’ for the eugenics movement that you claim you have shown me? I know you mentioned it came from Martin Luther, but his writings had been around for a couple of hundred years so it doesn’t make sense that all of a sudden they were put into this very calculated program of genocide that included not just Jewish people but gypsies, political enemies,

It wasn’t just recently. Massacres against the Jews were a regular thing in Europe, before and after Luther. He wasn’t the only one who advocated such things.

If you read about what happened to people considered strange or unusual in Europe, you’ll see that none of it was the consequence of Darwin or science. Luther’s rant against the Jews has about 90 percent of Hitler’s “Final Solution.”

So, my second question, what was the main source that gave validity to for the Nazi program in your mind, with the understanding that explaining it simply with Martin Luther doesn’t work?

Racism. And religious hatred. Luther greatly advanced the hatred of Jews, but that was a common theme in Europe for a very long time. It does show that Darwinism wasn’t the cause.

Also explain why Hitler used the word ‘evolution’ so many times in Mein Kaph.

He referred to Christianity a lot, also. But what exactly do you think he wrote about evolution? I don’t remember reading much in there about that.

Ok, you are saying I am editing Darwin’s writings to make them appear to have different meanings.

I suspect, you never actually read “The Descent of Man.” The doctored quote you offered is a common one on creationist websites; they removed the part where Darwin said eugenic ideas were evil. For obvious reasons. I think in this case, you were duped, not deceptive.

All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.

Indeed. And DNA verifies this. It also verifies that they are all related by common descent, as Pope Benedict wrote.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

You said that the main cause for the Nazi extermination/ death camps was racism, Martin Luther and anti semitism:
Barbarian:
I"t wasn’t just recently. Massacres against the Jews were a regular thing in Europe, before and after Luther. He wasn’t the only one who advocated such things. … Luther’s rant against the Jews has about 90 percent of Hitler’s “Final Solution.”…

---

Mary:
OK, I am addressing only one thing in this post and that is your argument that the Nazi’s program for extermintating so many people came mainly from racism.

First, I will agree that racism, Martin Luther’s writings against the jewish people, anti-semitism did play a part. But as we have discussed in the past, Darwin included racists comments in his own works. So thay played into those past beliefs adding the element of genetics and that nature uses different ways of eliminating weaker genetic members of any species.

Mein Kamf, Chapter II The State
stormfront.org/books/mein_kampf/mkv2ch02.html

"It must make sure that the purity of the racial strain will be preserved. It must proclaim the truth that the child is the most valuable possession a people can have. It must see to it that only those who are healthy shall beget children; that there is only one infamy, namely, for parents that are ill or show hereditary defects to bring children into the world and that in such cases it is a high honour to refrain from doing so. But, on the other hand, it must be considered as reprehensible conduct to refrain from giving healthy children to the nation. In this matter the State must assert itself as the trustee of a millennial future, in face of which the egotistic desires of the individual count for nothing and will have to give way before the ruling of the State. In order to fulfil this duty in a practical manner the State will have to avail itself of modern medical discoveries. It must proclaim as unfit for procreation all those who are inflicted with some visible hereditary disease or are the carriers of it; and practical measures must be adopted to have such people rendered sterile. On the other hand, provision must be made for the normally fertile woman so that she will not be restricted in child-bearing through the financial and economic system operating in a political regime that looks upon the blessing of having children as a curse to their parents. …

Those who are physically and mentally unhealthy and unfit must not perpetuate their own suffering in the bodies of their children. From the educational point of view there is here a huge task for the People’s State to accomplish. But in a future era this work will appear greater and more significant than the victorious wars of our present bourgeois epoch. Through educational means the State must teach individuals that illness is not a disgrace but an unfortunate accident which has to be pitied, yet that it is a crime and a disgrace to make this affliction all the worse by passing on disease and defects to innocent creatures out of mere egotism.

And the State must also teach the people that it is an expression of a really noble nature and that it is a humanitarian act worthy of admiration if a person who innocently suffers from hereditary disease refrains from having a child of his own but gives his love and affection to some unknown child who, through its health, promises to become a robust member of a healthy community. In accomplishing such an educational task the State integrates its function by this activity in the moral sphere…

If for a period of only 600 years those individuals would be sterilized who are physically degenerate or mentally diseased, humanity would not only be delivered from an immense misfortune but also restored to a state of general health such as we at present can hardly imagine. If the fecundity of the healthy portion of the nation should be made a practical matter in a conscientious and methodical way, we should have at least the beginnings of a race from which all those germs would be eliminated which are to-day the cause of our moral and physical decadence. …"

---

From reading this Chapter from Mein Kampf I could see that Hitler felt that racial purity was important. he believed that if the Aryian race mixed with other races civilization would be down graded and lost. He mentioned the Jewish race but also others. He felt it was the state’s responsibility to preserve the racial stock that belonged to it. But as you can see from this section he talks about cleansing the gene pool of weakness and that individuals with any genetic traits that were defective should be sterilized and prevented from having children.

Isn’t that eugenics?

In Christ,
MaryJohnz

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It wasn’t just recently. Massacres against the Jews were a regular thing in Europe, before and after Luther. He wasn’t the only one who advocated such things. … Luther’s rant against the Jews has about 90 percent of Hitler’s “Final Solution.”…

Mary:
OK, I am addressing only one thing in this post and that is your argument that the Nazi’s program for extermintating so many people came mainly from racism.

And religious bigotry.

First, I will agree that racism, Martin Luther’s writings against the jewish people, anti-semitism did play a part.

That’s an understatement. It’s why the Anti-Defamation League denounced Stein’s denial of the cause of the Holocaust:

**The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.

Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler’s genocidal madness.

Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.**

But as we have discussed in the past, Darwin included racists comments in his own works.

So did Abraham Lincoln:
"Certainly the Negro is not our equal in color—perhaps not in many other respects; still, in the right to put into his mouth the bread that his own hands have earned, he is the equal of every other man. In pointing out that more has been given to you, you cannot be justified in taking away the little which has been given to him. If God gave him but little, that little let him enjoy."
hoover.org/publications/digest/2993391.html

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
-Abraham Lincoln, September 18, 1858

Precisely what Darwin’s opinion was. As you might know, he got in a terrible argument with the Captain of the Beagle by saying just such things.

Are you arguing that Abraham Lincoln was responsible for the Holocaust? It would make more sense than blaming Darwin. Hitler admired Lincoln. For all the wrong reasons, but we could certainly make a better case for Lincoln as an inspiration then Darwin.

Hitler’s comments:
"It must make sure that the purity of the racial strain will be preserved. It must proclaim the truth that the child is the most valuable possession a people can have. It must see to it that only those who are healthy shall beget children; that there is only one infamy, namely, for parents that are ill or show hereditary defects to bring children into the world and that in such cases it is a high honour to refrain from doing so."

That would be a repeat of Sparta’s policy, not Darwin’s. Darwin, as you know, said that such a thing was evil.

Isn’t that eugenics?

Yes. Precisely what Darwin denounced, and other Darwinians showed to be unscientific and unworkable.

Are you going to claim that Lincoln inspired the Holocaust? Probably not, since you probably don’t hate Lincoln.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

I think it does make sense to look at Martin Luther as part of this whole thing because he was a main source for the religious/ spiritual beliefs of the German people. His ideas or theology concerning how God created the world would be an important part of the equation.

We can agree that racism was a part of the equation and that there was a view point that gave a moral justification for killing off other races to bring about racial purity as a means of furthering a superior race. We can even see that Hitler defined this in some way as doing God’s work.

We also agree that it is part of the ‘eugenics’ concept that impure and defective persons should be prevented from having children.

So maybe we should look at how Martin Luther defined the process of creation and whether or not those ideas fit in with killing off of impure races and unfit people inorder to further the work of creation of the human species. If we can find that then we can say the ideas came from Martin Luther without Darwin. Are we agreed on that?

So I am going to research something on martin Luther and his beliefs on creation.

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

So for martin Luther to be the main culprit in leading to the type of racial cleansing that the Nazi’s under Hitler put into their soical policies he would have ot believe in some form of ongoing creative process. he would have to believe that creation is an evolving event that is altered, as Hitler expresses, when different races intermix and procreate. he would have to believe that this process of inter-racial mixing would be a negative one against God’s plan for the human race. he would also have to believe that some races or men were created inferior to others.

We have seen that he was very anti-semetic. But wasn’t that based on the notion that the jewish peple had been the ones who killed Christ? That is my understanding of classical anti-semitism. A view i do not hold, by the way. I want to make that very clear. I believe Jesus dies for all of mankind’s sins. There were good Jewish poeople and bad ones just as there are in all races.

So I looked up Martin Luther’s belief’s on creation and he was very anti-Darwin. he did not believe in a creation process that unflded over time and over which man had any control. So in that sense the idea of using eugenics to bring about a higher, more pure, superior form of man would not be a part of martin Luther.

Here is a page which talks about martin Luther’s views on Creation, which were very literal, and would not even allow for a theistic view of Darwin.

"Luther scorned theistic evolution, which was known among the educated of his day: ‘It is not true,’ he wrote, ‘as several heretics and other vulgar persons allege, that God created everything in the beginning, and then let nature take its own independent course, so that all things now spring into being of their own power; thereby they put God on a level with a shoemaker or a tailor. This not only contradicts scripture, but it runs counter to experience’17.

Aware of the scientific claims, Luther also stated: ‘Just as no creature was able to contribute towards its own creation at the beginning, so it has not been able to work towards its preservation and the perpetuation of its kind. Thus, as we human beings did not create ourselves, so we can do nothing to keep ourselves alive for a single moment by our own power.’18

Luther’s words rejecting chance and mechanistically guided processes to explain man are as specific and clear as if he had read Darwin. In his comments on Genesis 1:6 he states, ‘Here we are taught about the beginning of man, that the first man did not come into existence by a process of generation as reason had deceived Aristotle and the philosophers into imagining.’19 His clear rejection of any and all chance processes to explain the world, came from his observation that scripture has clearly ruled these explanations out. ‘Ungodly and wicked men, who suppose that everything happens by chance, understanding nothing in the Holy Scriptures and creatures of God.’20 There can be little doubt that Luther was familiar with the classic basics of evolution. There can be no doubt that he thoroughly rejected them."
It seems that there were very early pagan beliefs that were forms of evolution. One is mentioned on this page as being attributed to Lucretius.

"Luther was referring to such men as Lucretius (1st century B.C.) who in his writings on, ‘the Nature of the Universe’2 attacked concepts central to the biblical story of creation as ‘sheer nonsense’. Lucretius stated, ‘Nothing can ever be created by divine power out of nothing’ … ‘the theory that they (the gods) deliberately created the world in all its natural splendour for the sake of man … This theory … with all its attendant fictions is sheer nonsense!’ "

answersingenesis.org/creation/v6/i3/luther.asp

So while I agree Martin Luther may have been a source for anti-semitism, I don’t see how his ideas on creation could be construed as leading to the eugenic approach in Nazi Germany.

So do you have an explanation where that came from, other than Darwin? By the way, I am not saying I agree with Martin Luther’s comments on creation. I tend to think God can use evoltuion as part of the creative process. But I do think there is a Divine order to things. I am just trying to see where the ideas of eugenics came from other than Darwin. They don’t seem to come from martin Luther.

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

So for martin Luther to be the main culprit in leading to the type of racial cleansing that the Nazi’s under Hitler put into their soical policies he would have ot believe in some form of ongoing creative process. he would have to believe that creation is an evolving event that is altered, as Hitler expresses, when different races intermix and procreate. he would have to believe that this process of inter-racial mixing would be a negative one against God’s plan for the human race. he would also have to believe that some races or men were created inferior to others.

No, he merely needed to provide a justification and a proposed program for the destruction of the Jewish people. And he did. Of course, Luther wasn’t the only antisemite in Germany, but he was the only one from whom Hitler got the Final Solution.

We have seen that he was very anti-semetic. But wasn’t that based on the notion that the jewish peple had been the ones who killed Christ?

No. He also declared that Jews hated and economically exploited other Germans, something Hitler also used as justification:

**Therefore they boast of being the noblest, yes, the only noble people on earth. In comparison with them and in their eyes we Gentiles (Goyim) are not human; in fact we hardly deserve to be considered poor worms by them. For we are not of that high and noble blood, lineage, birth, and descent. This is their argument, and indeed I think it is the greatest and strongest reason for their pride and boasting…From their youth they have imbibed such venomous hatred against the Goyim from their parents and their rabbis, and they still continuously drink it. As Psalm 109:18 declares, it has penetrated flesh and blood, marrow and bone, and has become part and parcel of their nature and their life… If you cannot tolerate a person in a country or home, does that constitute holding him in captivity? In fact, they hold us Christians captive in our own country. They let us work in the sweat of our brow to earn money and property while they sit behind the stove, idle away the time, **, and roast pears.

Could have been taken from one of Goebbel’s speeches, um?

So I looked up Martin Luther’s belief’s on creation and he was very anti-Darwin. he did not believe in a creation process that unflded over time and over which man had any control.

He also thought the Sun goes around the Earth. But he wasn’t well educated in science, and lived in a time when people didn’t know as much.

"Luther scorned theistic evolution, which was known among the educated of his day: ‘It is not true,’ he wrote, ‘as several heretics and other vulgar persons allege, that God created everything in the beginning, and then let nature take its own independent course, so that all things now spring into being of their own power; thereby they put God on a level with a shoemaker or a tailor. This not only contradicts scripture, but it runs counter to experience’17.

That’s deism, not Darwinism. BTW, Catholic theologians like St. Augustine recognized that the world was created one way, and then evolved over time.

Luther’s words rejecting chance and mechanistically guided processes to explain man are as specific and clear as if he had read Darwin.

Luther rejects the observation of St. Thomas Aquinas that even contingency is part of God’s plan. But then Luther rejected a lot of Catholic doctrine.

It seems that there were very early pagan beliefs that were forms of evolution.

No. In fact, the Ionian Greek scientists were often accused of impiety for their conclusions. You have it backwards.

So while I agree Martin Luther may have been a source for anti-semitism, I don’t see how his ideas on creation could be construed as leading to the eugenic approach in Nazi Germany.

Eugenics was for Hitler, just an excuse. As the Anti-defamation League points out, it was racism and economic factors.

So do you have an explanation where that came from, other than Darwin?

By now, you have no excuse for saying it came from Darwin at all. If you persist in blaming Darwin, after being shown numerous times that he opposed it, we will have to conclude you have no interest in telling the truth.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

We also should be looking more at Mein Kampf because that does show what Hitler thought about creation as well…if the ideas he has about creation line up with martin Luther than we can go with that explanation for the main cause of the holocaust.

This was another section in Mein Kampf:
’

“The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the following:Lowering of the level of the higher race;”

"Physical and intellectual regression and hence the beginning of a slowly but surely progressing sickness. To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the eternal creator.And as a sin this act is rewarded.
When man attempts to rebel against the iron logic of Nature, he comes into struggle with the principles to which he himself owes his existence as a man. And this attack I must lead to his own doom. Here, of course, we encounter the objection of the modern pacifist, as truly Jewish in its effrontery as it is stupid! ‘Man’s role is to overcome Nature!’
Millions thoughtlessly parrot this Jewish nonsense and end up by really imagining that they themselves represent a kind of conqueror of Nature; though in this they dispose of no other weapon than an idea, and at that such a miserable one, that if it were true no world at all would be conceivable.

But quite aside from the fact that man has never yet conquered Nature in anything, but at most has caught hold of and tried to lift one or another corner of her immense gigantic veil of eternal riddles and secrets, that in reality he invents nothing but only discovers everything, that he does not dominate Nature, but has only risen on the basis of his knowledge of various laws and secrets of Nature to be lord over those other living creatures who lack this knowledge-quite aside from all this, an idea cannot overcome the preconditions for the development and being of humanity, since the idea itself depends only on man. Without human beings there is no human idea in this world, therefore the idea as such is always conditioned by the presence of human beings and hence of all the laws which created the precondition for their existence."
…
“At this point someone or other may laugh, but this planet once moved through the ether for millions of years without human beings and it can do so again some day if men forget that they owe their higher existence, not to the ideas of a few crazy ideologists, but to the knowledge and ruthless application of Nature’s stern and rigid laws…”
hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch11.html
Mein Kamph: Nation and Race
Chapter XI_

---

Those words to me indicate that Hitler was a man who believed in applying the laws of nature as science revealed them. Notice how he capitalizes the word 'Nature"as well, showing that he regards nature as a ‘god’, or so it would seem to me. Why else would he do that? he places the work of men under the rigorus laws of nature…so would that indicate he is using a scientific principal as a guide for his eugenics philosophy? Why would tyhat not lead to Darwin?

I ask that as a question. That is what I get out of reading his writings in this section.

In Christ, MaryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

We also should be looking more at Mein Kampf because that does show what Hitler thought about creation as well…if the ideas he has about creation line up with martin Luther than we can go with that explanation for the main cause of the holocaust.

Good idea. Let’s take a look…

1.First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them.

Who said it? Luther or Hitler?

2."Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Who said it? Luther or Hitler?

3.In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison.

Who said it? Luther or Hitler?

Those words to me indicate that Hitler was a man who believed in applying the laws of nature as science revealed them.

Sometimes. He was in favor of chemistry and electronics, for example. But he viciously rejected genetics and evolution in favor of his twisted versions of them.

Notice how he capitalizes the word 'Nature"as well, showing that he regards nature as a ‘god’, or so it would seem to me. Why else would he do that?

That was someone’s little trick for you. German nouns are always capitalized. Why didn’t whoever translated this either not capitalize “nature” or else capitalize all the nouns? I think you can figure that out, um? You’ve been taken in by people you trusted to tell you the truth.

he places the work of men under the rigorus laws of nature…

We are indeed subject to nature. We are part of it.

so would that indicate he is using a scientific principal as a guide for his eugenics philosophy?

Nope. As you learned, scientists who study nature rejected eugenics.

Why would tyhat not lead to Darwin?

Because Darwin and his followers denounced eugenics.

I ask that as a question. That is what I get out of reading his writings in this section.

Read the quotes above. Decide if they were from Hitler or Luther. And then ask yourself why they are so similar.

And then, maybe, the truth will be yours. At very least you need to stop trusting some of those sites that lie to you.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

[Nope. As you learned, scientists who study nature rejected eugenics.

really? Then why are there so many still involved in eugenics today? Don’t keep repeating that line we have all seen the links to the Galton Institue and other modern eugenic movements.

But back to Hitler.
hitler killed a lot more than just Jewish people, although they were a prime target:
http://www.deathcamps.info/testimonies/victims.htm

" As many as one-half million Gypsies, at least 250,000 mentally or physically disabled persons, and more than three million Soviet prisoners-of-war also fell victim to Nazi genocide. Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals, Social Democrats, Communists, partisans, trade unionists, Polish intelligentsia and other undesirables were also victims of the hate and aggression carried out by the Nazis."

Barbarian:
Because Darwin and his followers denounced eugenics.

---

Mary:
Then why was his son and cousin an ardent supporter of the London eugenics Society which was in extistance through the whole of the 20th century, changing its name to the Galton Insitute in 1989?

---

As to whether the holocause was a 'Christian" inspired movment based on the writings of Martin Luther there are some aspects that just don’t make sense in regards to that.

For one thing why didn’t the Nazi’s choose a Christian cross form as a symbol?

Hitler and Christianity
by Edward Bartlett-Jones
bede.org.uk/hitler.htm

"What were Hitler’s religious beliefs?
"…It is sometimes said that Hitler was a believer in God and specifically that he was a Christian or at least was brought up as a Catholic. After all, weren’t most Austrians, certainly in the late 19th century, nominally Catholics? And what about the frequent references to “God” and “Providence” in his speeches, or to immortality, or the quasi-religious imagery of Nazism?

… It can reasonably be said that, because of the region in which he was brought up, and the religious faith of at least one of his parents, Hitler was nominally a Catholic. Among his biographers, however, none assert that the boy was even baptized, although it is likely, and there is no evidence of any particularly strong religious element in his upbringing or of feelings of faith like those held by his mother.

" His Party Charter for the nascent Nazional Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei demanded in Article 24, in contrast to strong Christian control of German’s spiritual life, “complete freedom of religion” (in so far, of course, as that was not a “danger to Germany”) (William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Arrow, 1991). Indeed, the official “Nazi Party Philosopher”, Alfred Rosenberg, (later to be hanged at Nuremberg), appointed of course with Hitler’s consent, was totally opposed to Christianity.

Upon attaining office and enjoying a free hand, what line did Hitler take on religion and the Church? Five days after becoming Chancellor in 1933, Hitler allowed a sterilization law to pass, and had the Catholic Youth League disbanded (Shirer, The Rise). …

Parents were pressured to take their children out of religious schools. When the Church organized voluntary out-of-hours religious classes, the Nazi government responded by banning state-employed teachers from taking part. The Crucifix symbol was even at one point banned from classrooms in one particular jurisdiction, Oldenburg, …

Hitler’s references to providence and God and the ritualistic pageantry of Nazism were more than likely pagan than Christian. Earthly symbols of German valour and Teutonic strength were to be worshipped - not the forgiving, compassionate representative of an “Eastern Mediterranean servant ethic imposed on credulous ancient Germans by force and subterfuge” (the phrase is Burleigh’s own, in Michael Burleigh, The Third Reich: a New History, Pan, 2001). A Hitler Youth marching song (Grunberger, A Social History) illustrates it:

We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel,
Away with incense and Holy Water,
The Church can go hang for all we care,
The Swastika brings salvation on Earth.
(Horst Wessel was an early Nazi party Sturmabteilung street-fighter murdered by communists and turned into a martyr by propaganda chief Josef Goebbels.)

The SS were particularly anti-Christian, and officers and men were encouraged to leave the Church, … The SS also brought in its own neo-pagan rituals for marriage ceremonies and baptisms.

…

---

So the notion that Martin Luther was the main inspiration does not make complete sense in this regard: Hitler and the Nazis hated Christians.

In Christ,
maryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Beyond the fact that Hitler and the Nazis apparently hated Christians and the Catholic Church, we have another link to run down.That is the link to the American eugenics movment, after all the famous Dr. Mendel originally came from this country.

waragainsttheweak.com/

"In the first three decades of the 20th Century, American corporate philanthropy combined with prestigious academic fraud to create the pseudoscience eugenics that institutionalized race politics as national policy. The goal: create a superior, white, Nordic race and obliterate the viability of everyone else.

How? By identifying so-called “defective” family trees and subjecting them to legislated segregation and sterilization programs. The victims: poor people, brown-haired white people, African Americans, immigrants, Indians, Eastern European Jews, the infirm and really anyone classified outside the superior genetic lines drawn up by American raceologists. The main culprits were the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune, in league with America’s most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Harvard, Yale and Princeton, operating out of a complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island. The eugenic network worked in tandem with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the State Department and numerous state governmental bodies and legislatures throughout the country, and even the U.S. Supreme Court. They were all bent on breeding a eugenically superior race, just as agronomists would breed better strains of corn. The plan was to wipe away the reproductive capability of the weak and inferior.

Ultimately, 60,000 Americans were coercively sterilized — legally and extra-legally. Many never discovered the truth until decades later. Those who actively supported eugenics include America’s most progressive figures: Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger and Oliver Wendell Holmes.

American eugenic crusades proliferated into a worldwide campaign, and in the 1920s came to the attention of Adolf Hitler. Under the Nazis, American eugenic principles were applied without restraint, careening out of control into the Reich’s infamous genocide. During the pre-War years, American eugenicists openly supported Germany’s program. The Rockefeller Foundation financed the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute and the work of its central racial scientists. Once WWII began, Nazi eugenics turned from mass sterilization and euthanasia to genocidal murder. One of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute doctors in the program financed by the Rockefeller Foundation was Josef Mengele who continued his research in Auschwitz, making daily eugenic reports on twins. After the world recoiled from Nazi atrocities, the American eugenics movement — its institutions and leading scientists — renamed and regrouped under the banner of an enlightened science called human genetics."

---

If this is historical fact then it seems apparent that eugenics and the Nazi holocaust were partners. Anti-semitism was certainly a primary aspect. Can we find evidence that the jewish people were
harmed by eugenicists in our country?

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Nope. As you learned, scientists who study nature rejected eugenics.

really? Then why are there so many still involved in eugenics today?

Don’t know any, myself. Can you name one prominent scientist who accepts classical eugenics?

Don’t keep repeating that line we have all seen the links to the Galton Institue and other modern eugenic movements.

The Galton Institute, from their website, seem to have nothing to do with the sort of eugenics that began in planned parenthood, or Hitler. The only remnant of that is a rightwing nut group, the Pioneer Fund. And no scientist if any consequence wants anything to do with them.

(assertion that Hitler considered Jews and some other groups expendable)

Like Martin Luther. But not like Darwin or Darwinians who condemned such ideas.

Darwin and his followers denounced eugenics.

Then why was his son and cousin an ardent supporter of the London eugenics Society

Probably his son disagreed with him on that, because his son wasn’t a scientist.

As to whether the holocause was a 'Christian" inspired movment based on the writings of Martin Luther there are some aspects that just don’t make sense in regards to that.

You can read Luther’s rant against the Jews. He outlines 90 percent of Hitler’s Final Solution.

For one thing why didn’t the Nazi’s choose a Christian cross form as a symbol?

On the belt buckles of Hitler’s troops was “Gott mit Uns.” (God is on our side)

"What were Hitler’s religious beliefs?

Let’s see…

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."
Speech 1922

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
Mein Kampf

And Hitler is the one who knew what he believed. There you have it.

So the notion that Martin Luther was the main inspiration does not make complete sense in this regard: Hitler and the Nazis hated Christians.

Nice try.

 

[The_Barbarian]

(Barbarian points out that Darwinian scientists denounced classical eugenics)

If this is historical fact then it seems apparent that eugenics and the Nazi holocaust were partners.

Yes. As you learned, they took their cue from Luther’s advice to princes on what to do with the Jews. Everything but the gas chambers, came from Luther.

Anti-semitism was certainly a primary aspect. Can we find evidence that the jewish people were harmed by eugenicists in our country?

In general, the eugenists were abusive to the poor and the defenseless. Jews usually were not that, in this country.

There was much admiration for fascism in prewar America, and therefore a good deal of anger at Jews on the part of some like the American Bund and the American Legion. (which, BTW, dropped their support of Mussolini like a hot rock when the war began)

Regrettably some in the Church also succumbed to this kind of racism:
ia341243.us.archive.org/3/items/ThePoint1952/Point1958.pdf

Father Feeney was finally defrocked by the Church for his continuing attacks on Jews, which were admittedly less Nazi-like than those of Martin Luther.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Darwin and his followers denounced eugenics.
this is an impossibility. You said so yourself. the eugenics movement staryed after Darwin died.
Probably his son disagreed with him on that, because his son wasn’t a scientist.

Let’s see…

**"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were [it. …

[COLOR=“Blue”]Provide links Please

Since the article stated that Hitler needed to win the support of Christians those two quotes could have been his way of doing that. But his actions are totlally contrary to a person working from Christian perspective.**

On the other hand the Eugenics movement was hardly dead.it was alive and well in America, and that is where Hitler got his ideas for his programs, not Martin Luther.

"Galton published Hereditary Genius in 1869 contending that all human characteristics developed from nature, not their environment. Thus, encouraging the humans with the best qualities to reproduce would improve the human race. Galton’s conclusion rested on his study of the families of the English elite. He traced the preceding generations of 1000 English leaders and found that they came from an exclusive group. To Galton, this proved that aptitude and leadership were inherited (43). This idea would not become immensely popular in England, but it would flourish in America.

At the turn of the twentieth century, America experienced a great change in the ethnicity of its population. Earlier waves of immigration brought white Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs), but the early twentieth century witnessed a new tide of incoming migrants. Yearly immigration increased more than five-fold from 225,000 to 1,300,000; the principal composition of this immigration was no longer of WASPs, but of Italians, Slavs, and Jews (Quinn). Numerous WASPs felt their societal domination to be in jeopardy. They saw America as “becoming less Protestant, less English, and less white” and America as committing “racial suicide” (Whitaker 45). This provided the perfect atmosphere for eugenics to proliferate throughout the country.

The advocates of WASP supremacy took on the job of distinguishing the fit from the unfit, and their decisions exhibited classism and racism. The leading American eugenicists provided statistics to the public that the poor, criminals, and immigrants were a drain on the rest of society. …

The Progressive Era, in the early twentieth century, sought to solve society’s problems using science and one of the answers was found in eugenics. The eugenics movement overlapped with progressivism in two areas: helping the unfit and improving the human race. Mark Haller, professor of history, points out that “society had a responsibility to care for the dependent and delinquent but society had, at the same time, a responsibility to see that such persons did not contaminate generations to come” (qtd. in Geetter). Whether it was segregation or sterilization, eugenicists argued that these measures offered the best life for the unfit. Accordingly, progressivism fit well with eugenics, since eugenic laws claimed to care for the less fortunate while really helping the dominant class."

---

Although Germans were also flattered at the idea of belonging to a “superior race,” few expressed interest in the movement until after World War I. Bitter and angry at the nation’s losses, many looked for someone to blame. Some turned against “the Jews” and other “racial enemies.” Others directed their anger
toward the “useless eaters” who stayed at home while the nation’s finest young men were murdered on the battlefields. In their efforts to protect the “race” by “breeding the best with the best,” these Germans found inspiration and encouragement
in the eugenics movement. By the 1920s German and Americans
eugenicists were working side by side on a variety of research projects.Eugenics also influenced the thinking of political leaders in both nations.Throughout the early 1900s eugenics had the support of American presidents and lawmakers. In Germany, it was central to the programs advocated by Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party.
traces.org/Teachers/Chapter_8_TheNaziConnection.pdf

---

barbarian, the historic record is clear. Your link to the antisemitism of martin Luther does not add up to the kinds of programs Hitler employed but the connection with American eugenics groups does make sense. That there was an American eugenics movement is historic record. You are the one who is in denial.

ITrying to make Hitler look like a Christian is totally dishonest.
Where are your links by the way.
In Christ,
maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Darwin and his followers denounced eugenics.

this is an impossibility.

It’s a fact.

You said so yourself.

the eugenics movement staryed after Darwin died.

In fact, it was practiced in ancient Sparta. It just wasn’t called eugenics.

Barbarian on Darwin’s opposition to eugenics:
Probably his son disagreed with him on that, because his son wasn’t a scientist.

Darwin on Hitler’s opinion of religion:
Let’s see…

""My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. " (Adolf Hitler, April 12, 1922, according to Norman H. Baynes, ed. “The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939,” Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)–Chris Thiefe.

Since the article stated that Hitler needed to win the support of Christians those two quotes could have been his way of doing that.

Or, he could just have recited Martin Luther’s writings.

But his actions are totlally contrary to a person working from Christian perspective.

So were a lot of other Christians.

d that is where Hitler got his ideas for his programs, not Martin Luther.

Hmm… what American eugenist advocated the things Luther wanted done to the Jews? I admit that they were an unscientific,and maybe immoral bunch, but they weren’t that evil.

"Numerous WASPs felt their societal domination to be in jeopardy. They saw America as “becoming less Protestant, less English, and less white” and America as committing “racial suicide” (Whitaker 45). This provided the perfect atmosphere for eugenics to proliferate throughout the country.

So it wasn’t Darwinism, after all. Thank you.

barbarian, the historic record is clear.

Indeed. As you learned, 90 percent of the Holocaust was copied from Luther’s writings about the Jews. You will not find that in the writings of classical eugenists, and as you know, Darwin and the Darwinists denounced it.

Your link to the antisemitism of martin Luther does not add up to the kinds of programs Hitler employed

Let’s take a look…
Luther’s program:
** 1. “First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. …”

1. “Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. …”
2. “Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. …”
3. “Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. …”
4. “Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. …”
5. “Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them. … Such money should now be used in … the following [way]… Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed [a certain amount]…”
6. "Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow… "
7. “If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews’ blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country” and “we must drive them out like mad dogs.” **
   Wikipedia, summarizing Luther’s program. As you see, it is essentially Hitler’s Final Solution, minus the gas chambers.

but the connection with American eugenics groups does make sense. That there was an American eugenics movement is historic record. You are the one who is in denial.

I told you there was such a movement. You are just in denial about who was doing it.

Trying to make Hitler look like a Christian is totally dishonest.

He wasn’t a very good one, but he did express a belief in God. He just had a twisted and demented idea of God. Remember, Luther was a committed Christian and wanted to do essentially the same thing to Jews.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Darwin on Hitler’s opinion of religion:
Let’s see…

""… In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. " (Adolf Hitler, April 12, 1922, according to Norman H. Baynes, ed. “The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939,” Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)–Chris Thiefe.
Political speech, very early on before he was in power,…meant to garner favor in certain Christian groups, not a part of the Mein Kampf and as my past post shows Nazis were anti-Christian. My own sister belongs to a religious order where the Priest, a Father Kentinneck (Schoenstatt Order) survived concetration camps. Other priests died including Max Kolbe. Why? Because they opposed the Nazis. If Hitler thought Christ was calling for people to kill the Jewish people he missed the point that Christ, Himself was a Jew.

BarbabariaN;
They saw America as “becoming less Protestant, less English, and less white” and America as committing “racial suicide” (Whitaker 45). This provided the perfect atmosphere for eugenics to proliferate throughout the country.So it wasn’t Darwinism, after all. Thank you.

Remember the “Apology of the Methodist Church”? They said it was DaRWINISM)COLOR]

I did not see that 90% of Mein Kampf had Luther’s writings in it. It was not about Jewish people so much as about German purity,
I DID NOT see that 90% of Mein Kamph was Martin Luther’s writings. Rather I saw a strong secular approach with the State taking chagre to protect the racial purity of its people. That had nothing to do with Martin Luther. The Jewish people are mentioned but so are Gypsies, others that are not of Aryan blood.
It was not a “religious” but a “racial” and “ethinic” war because he felt if the german race was bred with other races civilization would die.None of the items on Luther’s list went so far as to kill jewish people. Martin Luther never called for millions of jewish people to be killed. What he wrote was terrile, and how did he think he could convert people with such prejudice is beyond me, but he didn’t advocate death for them.
8. “If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews’ blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country” and “we must drive them out like mad dogs.”
Terrible but no killing

Wikipedia, summarizing Luther’s program. As you see, it is essentially Hitler’s Final Solution, minus the gas chambers.
a big minus

I told you there was such a movement. You are just in denial about who was doing it.

I was the one who first posted about the American movments in the earlier posts and you called the information 'editorial:. It was the piece from the EWTN library of the history of the eugenics movement. It showed how Hitler saw the American movement as a model for his own programs and how Doctor Mendel, the infamous Mendel, went to germany from the American programs. It showed the money behind the groups linked to Rockefeller Institute and Carnegie .

Even the Methodist Church in its “Apology” stated it took its ideas in the American eugenics movement from Darwin.

For more about American eugenics movement and link to Nazis from history see next post.
In Christ,
maryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Mendel Newsletter:
amphilsoc.org/library/mendel/2000.htm

"The story of America’s embrace of eugenic engineering has been largely hidden in historical archives and scholarly publications. The recent online release of the Digital Image Archive on the American Eugenics Movement (eugenicsarchive.org)), provides students, teachers, scholars, and the interested public an extraordinary window on this “hidden” chapter in the history of American science. The Eugenics Archive was developed by the DNA Learning Center of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, with funding provided by the Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues Program of the National Human Genome Research Institute.

Eugenics was, quite literally, an effort to apply Mendel’s laws to breed better human beings. Eugenicists encouraged reproduction of people of “good” genetic stock and discouraged reproduction of the “bad.” They wrongly used simple dominant/recessive schemes to explain complex behaviors and mental illnesses which we now know to involve many genes. Eugenicists sought an exclusively genetic explanation of human development, neglecting the important contributions of the environment. Their flawed data were the basis for social legislation to keep racial and ethnic groups separate, to restrict immigration from southern and eastern Europe, and to sterilize people considered genetically unfit."

The American eugenics movement was a model for the Nazis, whose radical adaptation of eugenics culminated in the Holocaust. However, in contrast to the obvious barbarity of Nazi “racial hygiene,” American eugenics presents the more subtle cautionary tale of the social perversion of a popular movement in health and “self-improvement.”

Not Martin Luther…American eugenics movemet----
The article goes on to say that now they know the science they were using was bad science, But it didn’t stop them. The ideas originated in science.

The newlsetter had an excellent article of Margret Sanger as well and I saw on a ‘eugenics watch’ site that International Planned Parenthood was originally housed at the London Eugenics Society offices (Galton Institute).

Most of the Galton Insitute articles are impossible to see without
registering to view them. But whether their web page shows negative things or not is a mute point, afterall they want to present a good face. The obvious thing is that they are Darwinian.
It is very clear they work with birth control and reproductive technologies.

In Christ,
maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

""… In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. " (Adolf Hitler, April 12, 1922, according to Norman H. Baynes, ed. “The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939,” Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)–Chris Thiefe.

Political speech, very early on before he was in power,…meant to garner favor in certain Christian groups, not a part of the Mein Kampf and as my past post shows Nazis were anti-Christian.

Nice try:

**"What we have to fight for…is the freedom and independence
of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill
the mission assigned to it by the Creator…page 125

And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his
estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary,
He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God…page 174**

A good deal of Hitler’s unreasoning hate of Jews was based in his twisted idea of God. And about 90 percent of that was taken from Martin Luther.

They saw America as “becoming less Protestant, less English, and less white” and America as committing “racial suicide” (Whitaker 45). This provided the perfect atmosphere for eugenics to proliferate throughout the country.

Barbarian observes:
So it wasn’t Darwinism, after all. Thank you.

Remember the “Apology of the Methodist Church”? They said it was DaRWINISM)

It would have been better for themselves, if they hadn’t tried to lay some of their guilt off on to the very people who denounced what they had done. Just as Stein tries to excuse the Nazis, so the Methodist Church tries to excuse itself by blaming the very people who pointed out the evil and the futility in what they did.

I did not see that 90% of Mein Kampf had Luther’s writings in it.

Ninety percent of the “Final Solution” can be found in Luther’s advice on what to do with the Jews. Hitler took his instructions from it.

And yes, Luther didn’t publicly announce a policy of killing Jews. If you look at the Wannsee document, you’ll find that the Nazis didn’t either. They learned well from Luther.

Wikipedia, summarizing Luther’s program. As you see, it is essentially Hitler’s Final Solution, minus the gas chambers.

Barbarian observes:
I told you there was such a movement. You are just in denial about who was doing it.

It was the piece from the EWTN library of the history of the eugenics movement. It showed how Hitler saw the American movement…

Which, as you know was denounced by Darwinians.

…as a model for his own programs and how Doctor Mendel, the infamous Mendel, went to germany from the American programs. It showed the money behind the groups linked to Rockefeller Institute and Carnegie .

So, to sum up, we know Darwin objected to such ideas. We know Darwinian scientists objected to them. We know that they were promoted by many religious leaders.

And your conclusion is, Darwin is to blame. Amazing.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

**""… In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. " **(Adolf Hitler, April 12, 1922, ****according to Norman H. Baynes, ed. “The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939,” Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)–Chris Thiefe.

EARLY POLICTICAL SPEECH-- DOES IT SURPRISE YOU THAT HE IS GOING TO TRY TO GAIN THE SUPPORT BY CLOAKING HIMSELF IN A CHRISTIAN GARMENT. EVIL LIKES TO APPEAR AS AN ANGEL OF LIGHT!

Margret Sanger does the same thing. She appears as if she is sympathetic to poor people and women. Her agenda is totally antu-woman as she destroys the very nature of the feminine through her promotion of birth control which breaks maternal instinct between mothers and children and treat pregnancy as if it is a disease rather than a nature even that follows intercourse.
This was a major factor in break down of family, ties between husband and wife as well. yet she poses as a compassionate, kind person. So do Planned Parenthood representatives act as if they are the compassionate people who represent 'Christian" values even more than Christians who see birth control and abortion as morally wrong.

Both of these movements are anti-Christ is nature not Christian. Both are tied to eugenics. Both can be traced back to theories of herdity and genetics. Both can be traced back to Darwin’s theory of evolution in the long run.

You are the one who is in denial.

Nice try:

**"What we have to fight for…is the freedom and independence
of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill
the mission assigned to it by the Creator…**page 125

Who or what is the 'Creator", just because the term is used doesn’t mean it means God, it could be defined as “Nature and Nature’s Laws” as decovered by science and applied through eugenics.

What was the ‘mission’, to preserve racial purity of the Germanic race which Hitler saw as being key to preserving civilzation. That is not a ‘religious’ mission, rather it is about the development of mankind according to secular, social standards.

Natural Law is not the meaning of 'conscnience" by the way. Conscience is the ability to determine what is right and what is wrong. Consciences are formed in part by social and cultural
influences, but if a person is seeking righteousness in God, God Himself, will inform that conscience no matter what culture or time period they exist in.

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will have their fill” Sermon on the Mount.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his
estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary,
He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God…page 174

A good deal of Hitler’s unreasoning hate of Jews was based in his twisted idea of God. And about 90 percent of that was taken from Martin Luther.

Hitler started out as Catholic, although it seems he had minnimal education. His hatred of the Jewish people was politically oriented more than religious. He used religion to further political, secular goals. Read Mein Kampf again, it is about the responsibilities of the “State”, not some kind of religious mission as defined by traditional Christian beliefs. You are the one twisting things here.

They saw America as “becoming less Protestant, less English, and less white” and America as committing “racial suicide” (Whitaker 45). This provided the perfect atmosphere for eugenics to proliferate throughout the country.

Barbarian observes:
So it wasn’t Darwinism, after all. Thank you.

Remember the “Apology of the Methodist Church”? They said it was DaRWINISM)

It would have been better for themselves, if they hadn’t tried to lay some of their guilt off on to the very people who denounced what they had done. Just as Stein tries to excuse the Nazis, so the Methodist Church tries to excuse itself by blaming the very people who pointed out the evil and the futility in what they did.

In what way does Stein excuse the Nazis? You are really twisting things now.

Ninety percent of the “Final Solution” can be found in Luther’s advice on what to do with the Jews. Hitler took his instructions from it.

Don’t see it…you had to resort to going to political speeches to find your referencese to Christianity.

So, to sum up, we know Darwin objected to such ideas. We know Darwinian scientists objected to them. We know that they were promoted by many religious leaders.

And your conclusion is, Darwin is to blame. Amazing.

So to sum it up, we do not know Darwin objected to these ideas. he died before the eugenics society was formed. His work was being interpreted by his cousin Galton and the Galton Institute is a continuation of the London Eugenics Society and still does work in the area os birth control and reproductive technologies
(from their site). Eugenic conspts were the basis for the nazi’s holocaust as ‘positive eugenics’ and they are still used in our culture under genetic counseling and birth control technologies.
All of these trace themselves back to Darwin in some way.
You are the one who is in denial. Amazing.
In Chrsit, MaryJohnZ