Glenn Beck: You know what’s killing America? Godlessness

posted at 7:40 pm on September 29, 2009 by Allahpundit

Give him credit for consistency: The second “core principle” of the 9/12 Project is, after all, “I believe in God and He is the center of my life.” I complained about that not long ago and a bunch of Beck fans jumped in to remind me that he’s said one needn’t believe in all the “core principles” to be part of the movement. No? Watch this clip and tell me how optional you think the God principle is in his mind.

I take his point about some liberal atheists filling the spiritual void with belief in government — it’s a pet peeve of an evangelical Democrat friend of mine, in fact — but (a) it’s not true of all nonbelievers, especially of the conservative stripe, and (b) personally, if I were inclined to get on my knees and wish/hope/pray for intervention from either God or Barack Obama, I’d call out for The One too. After all, there’s at least a chance he might show. I don’t get the either/or dichotomy Beck draws between social justice and eternal justice either; for starters, I can imagine Martin Luther King objecting rather strenuously to that. Nor do I understand the snotty, presumptuous accusation that atheists are “filling the void” with money and careers. Personally, I don’t feel any spiritual void, and even if I did, I’d rather not be lectured about it by a guy who has his own media empire and who’ll make more money this year than my entire extended family has made in the past century. What “void” in Beck’s soul is he filling with his fantastically popular show? See how condescending it is to even ask that?

And one more thing. If the key to American governance is the passage in the Declaration of Independence about god-given inalienable rights, why’d the authors of the Constitution go ahead and enumerate some of those rights anyway? And why, if they’re inalienable and god-given, weren’t those rights made exempt from amendment or repeal via Article V? The touchstone of the Constitution isn’t God, it’s rule by popular consent; religion may well influence the public in deciding which rights are so critical that even the popularly elected government should be forbidden to touch them, but when push comes to shove, it’s your call, not God’s. Slavery was once a right too, after all, and I’m sure there were plenty of apologists who found religious backing for that, fair or not.

Exit question: Why does he keep pushing the argument that his show isn’t about Democrat vs. Republican? That’s true, strictly speaking — he’s a libertarian, not a party apparatchik — but the Dems have been the party of big(ger) government for the past 40 years, at least. They’re antithetical to his philosophy. Saying his show has, or should have, no partisan resonance is like Janeane Garofalo insisting that she’s not about Dems or Repubs, just “truth.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 10 11 12 13

To quote R4L, the truth hurts. You can cast as many names as you like, but it doesn’t change the fact that Hitler quoted and cited the xian faith as part and parcel of his actions.

And, as so eloquently pointed out by bentman78, using the fallacious reasoning of R4L, that would make all xians just as bad.

I guess it is fortunate that so many people don’t think like R4L.

Gene Splicer on October 1, 2009 at 7:37 PM

yep you are obsessed with me….sick little puppy you are.

sick and a liar…ie a typical darwiniac.

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 7:49 PM

Allahpundit, who is one of those anti-live-and-let-live atheists we all can do without.

So medaling into the lives of others is to be preferred?

Beck is saying the religious have respect for life, compared to the unreligious.

And backs it up with nothing but hollow opinion.

This is simply a truism. History bears this out…

Yes, such historical cases as the witch trials where if you were proven no to be a witch, the test would kill you but you would be with god.

even Allahpundit’s attitude supports Beck’s argument. The lesson of the good Samaritan is simply not in Allahpundit’s “let’s get the readers of Hot Air to fight” bag.
Allahpundit is living proof of Beck’s well-made point.

Odd how I never have a non-religious person banging down my door to try to convert me and I never see any “Darwinist” on the street corners telling me and my family just how we are all going to be sent to hell and be tortured forever in the name of Beck’s loving god.

I think Beck would serve mankind better to have a live and let live attitude that people like Allahpundit and bentman78 have professed.

Gene Splicer on October 1, 2009 at 7:52 PM

get a life.

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 7:46 PM

Yeah…Hope you had another nice day..slick.

Speakup on October 1, 2009 at 7:55 PM

In as much as we are now a secular nation, it stands to reason that we needed a secular jesus. And now Allah, you have One.

redriver59 on October 1, 2009 at 7:56 PM

Yeah…Hope you had another nice day..slick.

Speakup on October 1, 2009 at 7:55 PM

hope you had a good day too sugar!

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 8:00 PM

R4L
yep you are obsessed with me….sick little puppy you are.

Because I point out how your arguments are fallacious or how history does back up the claims made about Hitler and the xian faith?

sick and a liar…ie a typical darwiniac.

And yet another simplistic dismissal. That is all you have in the end.

Gene Splicer on October 1, 2009 at 8:24 PM

apparently I have some imitators…well imitation is the sincerest form of flattery…but why would you care? you really are obsessed.

The obsession claim again? Again, not my fault you post the exact same claimes over and over again under different names.

If I was obsessed I would be following you from forum to forum and posting against you every time you posted.
Since I have not, your obsession claim is hollow.

didn’t you? you came in to this thead after me…

Partially and to talk about the topic, but you forget again that you claim those other names are not you and you forget we have debated before.

So since we have debated before in this forum your claims of stalking are simply laughable unless anyone who debates you from one thread to another is also stalking and obsessed over you.

and started posting about ME!! apparently its all about ME to you…

And again, you miss all the other topics you ignored and failed to reply to. Not my fault your replies are so myopic.

cyberstalkers ARE wackos…

Then prove I am stalking you. Again, you claim those other people aren’t you and we have debated here before so debating here again is not stalking.

and what would you call coming into this thread and talking about ME???? not the issues…ME.

So you do have poor reading comprehension then. I did and have spoken about the thread topic. Again, you ignored that part of my post. Not my fault.

then you’re a liar…the first thing your kind say is ‘you’re ignorant’ ie you’re a moron…so I respond in kind…and then you whine like a little sissy!!

Again, my “kind”. You are lumping me in with a group of others and missing the point I made.

I did not post any insult while your first reply to me did.

And rather than address your simplistic and juvenile actions, you simply post more baseless excuses and more insults proving my point.

your strange obsession with me earns the title of wacko…and its richly deserved…

Again, prove the obsession when we have debated here before and you claim that those other names are not yours.

what would you call people who try to silence others just because they have a different opinion??

Right off the bat? Xians, like you. Mind you, most aren’t like you.

First of all you would have to actually prove that such a thing took place. Calling people trying to censor other fascists is typically an easy leftist cop-out.

hmmm??? if the brown-shirt fits….and the darwiniacs who tried to silence sternberg ARE fascists.

But that is just the point. He wasn’t silenced so your claim is simply erosions.

a distinction without a difference…ever hear of synonyms??

And you keep reaching, laughable so. Being ignorant is not a synonym of moron. What is your next attempted excuse?

Synonyms: all thumbs, blundering, blunderous, bumbling, bungling, butterfingered, dumb, gawkish, gawky, graceless, half-witted, heavy-handed, idiotic, ignorant, inelegant, inept, klutzy, lubberly, lumbering, lumpish, moronic, simple, simpleminded, slow, stumbling, uncoordinated, undexterous, ungainly, unintelligent

Source and root term? And moron is not the same as moronic. You would think a pedantic person like you would know that.

yeah I’m not tom or tsmith. you’re a liar. and a wacko cybertalker…who is obsessed with me obviously.

Your claim is contradictory. If those names are not yours, then how can I be stalking you?

so you go to different forums looking for me…and you claim not to be a cyberstalker???? right…..

It is sad when you have to resort to lies of omission. I know those other names due to you posting on other forums that I am a member of.

I have no idea what an obviously disturbed person like you would do. I was threatened on this thread by another darwiniac…and your sick obsession with me is threatening in and of itself.

Right. So you post yet another cop-out. I was there when you claimed that someone here threatened you. They didn’t but I’m sure you think the whole world is after you.

And again, if those accounts are not yours, then why all the claims of stalking?

as long as you keep your sick little fantasies about me confined to cyberspace, could care less…but if you decide to bring it into my life..then you will not like what you find.

Not the standard threat, but it will do. And again, why feel so threatened if those other accounts are not yours?

because like everything else you say its BS.

Now that is odd. You claimed earlier that I did not address the topic of the thread but just talked about you. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

And nice simplistic dismissal again.

like prayer in school…its was fine for 150 years…
constitutional..when all of sudden its not…right, that
makes perfect sense.

Yes, from a separation POV it does.

I’ve made plenty of claims in this thread..and backed them up with quotes, and documentation…

No, you have quote mined, posted insults and dismissed or ignored anything or anyone you didn’t like.

Case in point, the fact that Hitler quoted and use the xian faith for his own ends.

you have not refuted a thing I have said…

Others have but then there is your simplistic dismissals and name calling as a last resort.

just displayed a rather sick fascination with me..

Again, that could only be true if several conditions were met. I would have to have followed you here which I didn’t. All of those accounts which you claim are not yours would have to be yours. And I would have a habit of posting against you every time you post here.

Sorry, but my actions do not support your claims.

get a life.

Get a new script and set of tactics. Again, not my fault that you use the same claims on multiple forums.

Gene Splicer on October 1, 2009 at 8:30 PM

Gene Splicer on October 1, 2009 at 8:30 PM

as usual, I’ve enjoyed making you and your other nom de plume bentman78, look like a fool.

and as usual, its been far too easy.

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 8:55 PM

as usual, I’ve enjoyed making you and your other nom de plume bentman78, look like a fool.

LOL. You are nothing if not amusing. Still resorting to copying the terminology of others I see. Pity you don’t have anything to back up your claims again.

and as usual, its been far too easy.

Right, just as it was far too easy to point out how you claimed all I did was talk about you but even admitted that I posted about other topics.

Still waiting to see just how to support your claims of me stalking you and why you got so upset over account that you claim are not yours.

Gene Splicer on October 1, 2009 at 9:40 PM

You are entering dangerous territory. Christ…IN…would not dare kill their Jewish fellows. You are sick. you make me sick.

jollybird on October 1, 2009 at 7:17 PM

I didn’t say it. Hitler did. Please lern to read before you comment…k-thanks.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 9:45 PM

To quote R4L, the truth hurts. You can cast as many names as you like, but it doesn’t change the fact that Hitler quoted and cited the xian faith as part and parcel of his actions.

And, as so eloquently pointed out by bentman78, using the fallacious reasoning of R4L, that would make all xians just as bad.

I guess it is fortunate that so many people don’t think like R4L.

Gene Splicer on October 1, 2009 at 7:37 PM

yep you are obsessed with me….sick little puppy you are.

sick and a liar…ie a typical darwiniac.

R4l doesn’t listent o reason or science. remember the mantra of you can’t reason someone out of a postion they’ve unreasoned themselves into.

Hitler among many used quoted and used christian ideology a lot. even the Nazi’s belt had “God is with us” inscribed on the buckle. Hitler never quoted any of evolutionary theory in any of his rants. Those facts mean nothing to the illogical fundamentalist

People like Genesplicer and myself know all Christians aren’t bad, even though they’re responsible for a lot of killing.

R4l’s life is steeped in lies, hyperbole, in ability of reason and the inability to comprehend what he reads.

There has been plenty of facts to refute his baseless claims but he can’t read them or refuses to see the facts parroting creationist talking points that have been dismissed time and time again by the scientific community.

He backs up his intellectual dishonesty with insults and claims the person presenting facts is lying.

You certainly didn’t make us look like fools. If anything I got a good laugh out of your baseless illogical rants. I do find it interesting how you ignore the evidence presented to you.

You keep regurgitating the same old fallacies over and over again, usually the sign you have nothing to fight with. You can live in ignorance all you want I’m fine with it. It’s when you spread disinformation that I have a problem with.

Oh and thanks for the laugh about the Discovery Institute. I wasn’t aware anyone took that organization seriously. They’ve never been published in a peer reviewed journal, back up their claims with easily debunked junk science and are the laughing stock of the academic community. But if you get a woody reading it, by all means do it, just don’t spread the wrong information. It’s not fair to other people

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 10:06 PM

You are entering dangerous territory. Christ…IN…would not dare kill their Jewish fellows. You are sick. you make me sick.

jollybird on October 1, 2009 at 7:17 PM

BS.

Christian history is littered with Christians committing pogroms of the Jews. You ever heard of a book entitled On the Jews and Their Lies? It was written by Martin Luther.

During the Black Plague pogroms happened lots of places. Infact, the Holocaust the culmination of a millenia and a half of Christian anti-semitism.

And there were the Pogroms that accompanied the Crusades, namely in France and Germany in 1096. There were massacres in London and York around 1190.

BS, Christian did it.

Unless you want to claim they weren’t Christians. Which is the exact same defense modern Communists use to discredit attacking Communism on its historical record and this defense is often used to defend the Theory of Evolution.

Holger on October 1, 2009 at 10:36 PM

BS.

Christian history is littered with Christians committing pogroms of the Jews. You ever heard of a book entitled On the Jews and Their Lies? It was written by Martin Luther.

During the Black Plague pogroms happened lots of places. Infact, the Holocaust the culmination of a millenia and a half of Christian anti-semitism.

Holger on October 1, 2009 at 10:36 PM

Yea and I also read Ivanhoe, by Sir Walter Scott. I understand that all religions and non religious people have murdered and started wars for greed or their god.

But NOW christians are helping Jews from russia and elswere to get to their homeland. Hitler wasn’t christian. He was a darwinist, even “sodom” hussein knew this. And this acckkkmadinajad thinks he is of the Aryan race, superior than all.

jollybird on October 1, 2009 at 10:56 PM

Yea and I also read Ivanhoe, by Sir Walter Scott. I understand that all religions and non religious people have murdered and started wars for greed or their god.

But NOW christians are helping Jews from russia and elswere to get to their homeland. Hitler wasn’t christian. He was a darwinist, even “sodom” hussein knew this. And this acckkkmadinajad thinks he is of the Aryan race, superior than all.

jollybird on October 1, 2009 at 10:56 PM

Hitler wasn’t a “darwinist” You’re either spreading for getting false information. Please read the post where I posted his own quotes from Mien Kampf. Here are a few:
Hitler based his ideas not on Darwinism but on divine right
“Thus it [the folkish philosophy] by no means believes in an equality of races, but along with their difference it recognizes their higher or lesser value and feels itself obligated, though this knowledge. to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demand subordination of the inferior and the weaker in accordance to the eternal will theat dominates the universe ”

Hitler was a young earth creationist when he wrote Mien Kampf:

“The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of it’s bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise”

Quotes from Hitler invoking Christianity as a basis for his actions can be multiplied ad nauseam:
“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 got the work of the Lord”

“[T]he task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission”

He often referred to socialism as a “godless movement”

Of course this does not mean Hitler’s idea’s were solely based on creationism alone anymore than they were based on evolution. Hitler’s ideas were perversions of religion and biology.

Racism existed long before Hitler or Darwin, and they didn’t need a contribution from Darwinism. In many instances such as the Crusades and the Spanish conquest of the Central America, religion was explicitly invoked to justify the actions, whether Christian of Muslim.

Implying evolution leads to social Darwinism is a naturalistic fallacy – the argument that how things are implies how they ought to be. But “is” does not imply “ought”. Evolution simply tells things how they are, not how they “ought” to be.

The source of Social Darwinism was Herbert Spencer as I noted before. A simple google search would show you that. Spencer – along Protestant nonconformism going back to Hobbes via Malthus – are Lamarckian. The only connection is the name.

So you can do with the facts as you like, but quit spreading rumors.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 11:04 PM

And one more thing, Christ would not advocate killing Jews, He was a Jew. Man advocates all sorts of evil. There was a time when only a few could read the scriptures.The Roman Catholics of the past are responsible for much misery. Even Calvin defended the burning of Michael Servetus, who didn’t believe in the trinity. It is only when all can have knowledge and be fully persuaded in their own minds what is the truth and freedom to believe or not, do we have genuine freedom. That is what christians offer now.

jollybird on October 1, 2009 at 11:11 PM

Of course this does not mean Hitler’s idea’s were solely based on creationism alone anymore than they were based on evolution. Hitler’s ideas were perversions of religion and biology.

Racism existed long before Hitler or Darwin, and they didn’t need a contribution from Darwinism. In many instances such as the Crusades and the Spanish conquest of the Central America, religion was explicitly invoked to justify the actions, whether Christian of Muslim

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 11:04 PM

Asolutely Agree on this.

jollybird on October 1, 2009 at 11:21 PM

hope you had a good day too sugar!

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 8:00 PM

Oh, I’m pretty sure the sarcasm is much more apropos to your hateful, pathetic, tormented, existence.

Speakup on October 1, 2009 at 11:28 PM

Oh, I’m pretty sure the sarcasm is much more apropos to your hateful, pathetic, tormented, existence.

Speakup on October 1, 2009 at 11:28 PM

well at least I’m not so hateful that I threaten to beat people up just for disagreeing with me…you have a good night honey….and try not to project so much onto others, sweety pie!

I’d kick his @ss just like I’d kick yours for proselytizing at his funeral.

Speakup on September 30, 2009 at 10:10 AM

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 11:45 PM

HOLD ON THERE JUNIOR, just when you start proving you have some validity and are on the right path, you come up with something STUPID, Allahpundit.
LISTEN to what Beck is saying, it’s NOT about religion or even God insomuch as it is about ethics, integrity and MORALS.

I do see a pretty BIG difference between more conservative atheists and leftist atheists though.
Conservative atheists believe people have a right to believe what they want and aren’t so interested in ramming that they are Right down everyone else’s throat, they just don’t want to be preached at constantly and, hell, I’m a Christian and I don’t want to be preached at.
Leftist atheists want religion ELIMINATED because they are so insecure in their beliefs and want to control EVERYONE.

nelsonknows on October 2, 2009 at 12:06 AM

well at least I’m not so hateful that I threaten to beat people up just for disagreeing with me…you have a good night honey….and try not to project so much onto others, sweety pie!

Way to misrepresent yet another comment made by another person.

Gene Splicer on October 2, 2009 at 12:07 AM

Hitler wasn’t a “darwinist” You’re either spreading for getting false information. Please read the post where I posted his own quotes from Mien Kampf. Here are a few:
Hitler based his ideas not on Darwinism but on divine right
“Thus it [the folkish philosophy] by no means believes in an equality of races, but along with their difference it recognizes their higher or lesser value and feels itself obligated, though this knowledge. to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demand subordination of the inferior and the weaker in accordance to the eternal will theat dominates the universe

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 11:04 PM

Here’s an interesting read from National Review

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=

jollybird on October 2, 2009 at 12:16 AM

The correlation between Atheism and Socialism/Communism is equally as significant as the correlation between Creationism and Conservatism, although I would bet there are far more creationist liberals than atheist conservatives.

Livefreeordie on October 2, 2009 at 1:40 AM

nelsonknows on October 2, 2009 at 12:06 AM

Exactly exactly exactly. My dad was a live-and-let-live conservative atheist.

Leftist atheists want religion ELIMINATED because they are so insecure in their beliefs

Allahpundit’s incessant anti-religious posts scream insecurity, not to mention his need for catharsis in the form of trying to get people to fight each other on Hot-Air.

I think Michelle Malkin misunderstands Allahpundit in this regard, and thinks people are ENGAGING when she sees the volume of comments on these posts. Basically, they are complaining and unhappy; she must be too involved elsewhere to be much concerned with Allahpundit’s thinly veiled hate posts on Hot-Air.

You don’t see Ed Morrissey making post after post supporting a Christian viewpoint, although Ed is clearly a practicing Christian. That’s because unlike Allahpundit, Ed has a live and let live viewpoint.

Can you picture Allahpundit crying over the Continental Congress’s beginning each session with prayer? I can!

Danzo on October 2, 2009 at 4:39 AM

Here’s an interesting read from National Review

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=

jollybird on October 2, 2009 at 12:16 AM

The guy who wrote it is from the DI. Be careful.

They are major ID proponents who spend more time trying to disprove evolution – in which their analysis is almost always flawed – then trying to scientifically back up their own claims. They have nothing written in any major scientific publication or peer reviewed journal because they have no science to back up their claims.

TO make a long story short, just like SOME Christians, the DI likes to spread disinformation about evolutionary theory in an attempt to discredit it.

As I noted, Hitler used many Christian or divine right ideologies in his writings/speechs. Yet one can hardly say the Holocaust was a product of those ideals. Evolution is no more responsible for The Nazi’s behavior than religion is.

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 6:47 AM

Can you picture Allahpundit crying over the Continental Congress’s beginning each session with prayer? I can!

I doubt it. If he was like myself, or any of the other atheists or agnostics I know he probably didn’t care. When I was in the military for my four year enlisted stint, when the chaplain led prayer at official functions I bowed my head and closed my eyes. Just because I didn’t subscribe to any faith doesn’t mean I didn’t respect the customs.

Trying to bag all atheists/agnostics/deists into one group is misleading.

Who cares what ones religious ideals are as long as his principles are sound and he has conservative believes? I wasn’t aware you have to be a Christian to be part of the good old boys club, especially since religious affiliation was irrelevant to the founders.

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 6:53 AM

And one more thing, Christ would not advocate killing Jews, He was a Jew. Man advocates all sorts of evil. There was a time when only a few could read the scriptures.The Roman Catholics of the past are responsible for much misery. Even Calvin defended the burning of Michael Servetus, who didn’t believe in the trinity. It is only when all can have knowledge and be fully persuaded in their own minds what is the truth and freedom to believe or not, do we have genuine freedom. That is what christians offer now.

jollybird on October 1, 2009 at 11:11 PM

Maybe…maybe not.l It depends. Remember it’s largely not the ideals but the perversion of ideals that create problems.

Trying to tie evolution to things like Marxism and Nazism is just false, just as is it if one attempts to tie every atrocity committed for the past 2000 years to religion. It’s not always the case.

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 6:57 AM

The Darwin-Hitler connection is no recent discovery. In her classic 1951 work The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt wrote: “Underlying the Nazis’ belief in race laws as the expression of the law of nature in man, is Darwin’s idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human being.”

The standard biographies of Hitler almost all point to the influence of Darwinism on their subject. In Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Alan Bullock writes: “The basis of Hitler’s political beliefs was a crude Darwinism.” What Hitler found objectionable about Christianity was its rejection of Darwin’s theory: “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.”

John Toland’s Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography says this of Hitler’s Second Book published in 1928: “An essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right.”

In his biography, Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris, Ian Kershaw explains that “crude social-Darwinism” gave Hitler “his entire political ‘world-view.’ ” Hitler, like lots of other Europeans and Americans of his day, saw Darwinism as offering a total picture of social reality. This view called “social Darwinism” is a logical extension of Darwinian evolutionary theory and was articulated by Darwin himself.

link

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 7:14 AM

“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” Stephen Jay Gould,
‘Ontogeny and Phylogeny’, Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 27-128

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 7:15 AM

“‘Social Darwinism’ is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start- ‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society.” (Desmond, Adrian [Science historian, University College, London] & Moore, James [Science historian, The Open University, UK], “Darwin,” [1991], Penguin: London, 1992, reprint, pp.xix).

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 7:18 AM

A direct line runs from Darwin, through the founder of the eugenics movement-Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton-to the extermination camps of Nazi Europe.” (Brookes, Martin.,”Ripe old age,” Review of “Of Flies, Mice and Men,” by Francois Jacob, Harvard University Press, 1999. New Scientist, Vol. 161, No. 2171, 30 January 1999, p.41).

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 7:19 AM

well at least I’m not so hateful that I threaten to beat people up just for disagreeing with me…you have a good night honey….and try not to project so much onto others, sweety pie!

You really are a sick, pathetic, little man and its a lot of fun torturing your guilt ridden, cowardly ass.

Speakup on October 2, 2009 at 8:10 AM

“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” Stephen Jay Gould,
‘Ontogeny and Phylogeny’, Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 27-128

Unfortunately for you, Gould – despite the fact he thought social Darwinism was racists – still believed and did research for evolutionary biology and never doubted the science behind it. The fact you keep using him is laughable.

He did a lot of work and research for evolutionary developmental biology in an attempt to determine the ancestral relationship between organisms and how developmental processes evolved. He considered many higher functions of the human brain to be the unintended side consequence or by-product of natural selection, rather than direct adaptations. So at no point did Gould ever say evolution was wrong or that some deity had direct control over the developmental process.

Once again you make yourself look like an idiot.

A direct line runs from Darwin, through the founder of the eugenics movement-Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton-to the extermination camps of Nazi Europe.” (Brookes, Martin.,”Ripe old age,” Review of “Of Flies, Mice and Men,” by Francois Jacob, Harvard University Press, 1999. New Scientist, Vol. 161, No. 2171, 30 January 1999, p.41).

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 7:19 AM

As did the divine right theology that Hitler professed in his own words in Mien Kampf, stating he was doing the Lords work by fighting against the Jew. Once again, attempting to refute the science of evolution by tying to to the Nazi’s is intellectually dishonest and shows your ignorance of both the science of evolution and Darwin himself. You can believe it’s “ironclad” yet all you have is hyperbole to back up your claims and not facts.

Linking to an article by a creationist at the DI is hardly reputable, please see my previous post about the DI, their lack of science and their attempts to smear evolution based on factless claims that are always debunked.

A direct line runs from Darwin, through the founder of the eugenics movement-Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton-to the extermination camps of Nazi Europe.” (Brookes, Martin.,”Ripe old age,” Review of “Of Flies, Mice and Men,” by Francois Jacob, Harvard University Press, 1999. New Scientist, Vol. 161, No. 2171, 30 January 1999, p.41).

Once again, another scientist who didn’t adhere to social Darwinism – which was created by Herbert Spencer – and didn’t doubt the science of evolution at all.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1965/jacob-bio.html
He also said:
“It is natural selection that gives direction to changes, orients chance, and slowly, progressively produces more complex structures, new organs, and new species. Novelties come from previously unseen association of old material. To create is to recombine. ”

Jacob was an atheist and furthermore his theories were applied to research which completely debunks the creationist notion of creation of cells can’t be from evolution because they’re “irreducibly complex”. The studies in fact show what Jacobs thought all along, that he believed “evolution as a tinkerer, cobbling together proteins of one function to yield more complex machines capable of new functions.”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090914111102.htm

I look forward to debunking more of your baseless rhetoric.

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 8:26 AM

You really are a sick, pathetic, little man and its a lot of fun torturing your guilt ridden, cowardly ass.

Speakup on October 2, 2009 at 8:10 AM

BWAHAHAHAHAH oh you really think you’re hot sh** don’t you fat boy?? you’re a delusional punk.

laughable.

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 8:36 AM

“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 civilized 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.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.241-242).

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 8:38 AM

“The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Life of Charles Darwin”, [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p.64)

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 8:38 AM

“The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Life of Charles Darwin”, [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p.64)

Once again you make yourself look like an idiot. Darwin was a product of his times and most likely viewed other non-Europeans as inferior. He was also anti-slavery and also did missionary work to improve the lives of the Tierra del Fuegians

The Founders where a product of their times as well. Many who signed the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were slave owners. James Madison, the father of the Constitution was a slave owner his whole life even though he said he was against it.

Does it make their struggle for independence or liberty any less credible because they talked about individual liberty but kept slaves? No it doesn’t. They were a product of their times and most themselves had moderate views on race for their period.

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 8:53 AM

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised 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 civilised 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.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.205-206

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 8:58 AM

“Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany. Nordenskiold (1929) argues that he was even more influential than Darwin in convincing the world of the truth of evolution. … But, as Gasman argues, Haeckel’s greatest influence was, ultimately, in another, tragic direction-national socialism. His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a “just” state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science-all contributed to the rise of Nazism. The Monist League that he had founded and led, though it included a wing of pacifists and leftists, made a comfortable transition to active support for Hitler.” (Gould, Stephen J. [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University], “Ontogeny and Phylogeny,” Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78).

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 8:58 AM

“The case for Darwinism cannot be based on any edification that is supposed to come from its truths. Through eugenics, Darwinism was a bad influence on Nazism, one of the greatest killers in world history. Darwinism probably contributed to the upsurge of racism in the latter part of the nineteenth century, and thus it helped foment twentieth-century racism generally. Darwinism was also used to exacerbate the neglect of the poor in the nineteenth century. All things considered, Darwinism has had many regrettable, and sometimes actually vicious, effects on the social climate of the modern world. Modern Darwinism does not offer any guarantee of unending progress. It is understandable that so many hate Darwin and Darwinism. It is often a bitter burden to live with Darwinism and its implications. Unlike so many doctrines, religions, and ideologies, it certainly isn’t intellectual opium. No one can make a case for Darwinism based on moral hygiene.” (Rose M.R. [Professor of Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine], “Darwin’s Spectre: Evolutionary Biology in the Modern World,” [1998], Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 2000, Third printing, p.210).

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 8:59 AM

“It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man, cognisant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man. And, if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smallerjawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins, though it is by no means necessary that they should be restricted to the lowest.” (Huxley, Thomas Henry [Anatomist, Dean of the Royal College of Science, and "Darwin's Bulldog"], “Emancipation-Black and White,” in Rhys E., ed., “Lectures and Lay Sermons,” [1871], Everyman’s Library, J.M. Dent & Co: London, 1926, reprint, p.115).

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 9:00 AM

(Rose M.R. [Professor of Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine], “Darwin’s Spectre: Evolutionary Biology in the Modern World,” [1998], Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 2000, Third printing, p.210).

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 8:59 AM

Rose, another evolutionary scientist that believed in the science of evolution. Wrote a book called “Darwin’s Spectre”. He believed evolution was correct and the science behind it was sound. He was not a Creationist.

Once again, Hitler – in Mien Kampf and his speeches – used many Christian or divine right ideologies. Yet one can hardly say the Holocaust was a product of those ideals. Evolution is no more responsible for The Nazi’s behavior than religion is.
Next…

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 9:07 AM

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 8:36 AM

Does anybody suffer being married to you?

When was the last time you hit her?

Speakup on October 2, 2009 at 9:25 AM

EIGHTY-TWO YEARS ago this week, Dayton, Tennessee received its summer of fame with Scopes v. State. The town’s charming county courthouse bloomed with celebrities–among them, superstar populist William Jennings Bryan, attorney Clarence Darrow, and journalist H.L. Mencken, whose 25,000 words on the impending trial would echo between the nation’s coasts. At the center of the moment sat John Scopes, the quiet schoolteacher accused of teaching evolution from a textbook mandated, ironically, by the state.

George William Hunter’s A Civic Biology: Presented in Problems (1914) was the book that sparked the controversy. Condemned as heretical in 1925, today it would seem to be a manual for enlightenment’s battle against religion’s perceived mysticism. Yet if John Scopes were to teach the very same Civic Biology in a modern classroom, he would probably be put on trial again. Because buried under the dust of history is the fact that this progressive, pro-evolution text was also quite racist.

Take, for example, these lines from page 196 of Hunter’s original version:

At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe
and America.

“If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading,” Hunter lamented in Civic Biology. “Humanity will not allow this but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race.”

link

unlike the darwiniacs, I don’t have to a lie about their Lord, darwin, like they do about mine.

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 9:35 AM

At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe
and America.

“If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading,” Hunter lamented in Civic Biology. “Humanity will not allow this but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race.”

link

unlike the darwiniacs, I don’t have to a lie about their Lord, darwin, like they do about mine.

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 9:35 AM

The following presents no indication he used the evolution as a basis for those passages. If anything he’s following the typological theories proposed by people before Darwin – who himself insisted we all originated from the same species – and has been debunked by evolution.

Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things considering different plants and animals to be distinct kinds. This line of thought gave the rise to misleading conception of human races in which different races were thought to be separate and distinct. Darwinism helps eliminates typological thinking because genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous. It doesn’t teach racism, it teaches the opposite.

bzzztt…you’re wrong again.

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 9:54 AM

‘One of the central planks in Nazi theory and doctrine was …evolutionary theory [and] … that all biology had evolved … upward, and that … less evolved types … should be actively eradicated [and] … that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore [the Nazis] instituted political measures to eradicate … Jews, and … blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped”.’

Wilder-Smith, B., The Day Nazi Germany Died, Master Books, San Diego, CA, p. 27, 1982.

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:02 AM

Sir Arthur Keith:

‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’
Reference
Keith, A., Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947.

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:04 AM

‘One of the central planks in Nazi theory and doctrine was …evolutionary theory [and] … that all biology had evolved … upward, and that … less evolved types … should be actively eradicated [and] … that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore [the Nazis] instituted political measures to eradicate … Jews, and … blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped”.’

Wilder-Smith, B., The Day Nazi Germany Died, Master Books, San Diego, CA, p. 27, 1982.

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:02 AM

Hitler also used divine right to justify his destruction of the Jews:
“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 got the work of the Lord”

“[T]he task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission”

Hardly sounds like the talk of someone who believes in evolution to me.

Once again…lies. Next.

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 10:07 AM

So this second Christmas of Hitler’s war finds Niemoller and upwards of 200,000 other Christians (some estimates run as high as 800,000) behind the barbed wire of the frozen Nazi concentration camps. Here men bear mute witness that the Christ—whose birth the outside world celebrates unthinkingly at Christmas—can still inspire a living faith for which men and women even now endure im prisonment, torture and death as bravely as in centuries past.

the world’s most famous scientist, Albert Einstein. Says he:
“Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks. . . .
“Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.”

link

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Aruthur Keith, another Darwinist himself. He proposes an interesting explanation for Britain’s leading role in the development of Industrial Society. Essentially he argues that the cold unwelcoming climate of Britain selected those who came here for a special ability to store up food and supplies for the winter.

And…if you’re going to use a quote, use the WHOLE quote.
“The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution. He has failed, not because the theory of evolution is false, but because he has made three fatal blunders in its application.”

So his opinion on Hitler supposedly being a Darwinist isn’t a magic bullet disproving the science of evolution. Try again…

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 10:14 AM

Once again…lies. Next.

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 10:07 AM

you can keep spewing your lies and BS…typical atheist trash…its all ya got…your words mean nothing.

what have you published?? post your publications. post your sources…all you have are wacko darwiniac BS.

thanks for the laughs…your desperation is amusing..and pathetic…can’t stand anything which casts a bad light on your hairygod darwin.

truth hurts, loser.

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:15 AM

The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution. He has failed, not because the theory of evolution is false, but because he has made three fatal blunders in its application

changes nothing…

epic fail.

try again.

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:16 AM

The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution. He has failed, not because the theory of evolution is false, but because he has made three fatal blunders in its application. The first was in forcing the pace of evolution among his own people; he raised their warlike passions to such a heat that the only relief possible was that of aggressive war. His second mistake lay in his misconception of the evolutionary value of power. All that a sane evolutionist demands of power is that it should be sufficient to guarantee the security of a nation; more than that is an evolutionary abuse of power. When Hitler set out to conquer Europe, he had entered on that course which brought about the evolutionary destruction of Genghis Khan and his Mongol hordes (see Chapter 34). His third and greatest mistake was his failure to realize that such a monopoly of power meant insecurity for Britain, Russia, and America. His three great antagonists, although they do not preach the doctrine of evolution, are very consistent exponents of its tenets.

next time use the whole quote…and stop quote mining you lying darwiniac stooge.

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Wilder-Smith, B., The Day Nazi Germany Died, Master Books, San Diego, CA, p. 27, 1982.

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:02 AM

Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith, creationist. Published books saying he saw dinosaur and human footprints together. Other publications completely debunked by the scientific community because of lack of research, falsehoods and errors.

Often ignored the basics of evolution to make his claims. Hardly a scientist. Next.

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 10:20 AM

meant insecurity for Britain, Russia, and America. His three great antagonists, although they do not preach the doctrine of evolution, are very consistent exponents of its tenets.blockquote>

this is a very interesting sentence…look what was going on in Russia at the time….the GULAG….I don’t know about britain…but I asssume it was like america…in the grip of eugenics…with people like Margaret Sanger, planned parenthood and the ‘negro project’

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Often ignored the basics of evolution to make his claims. Hardly a scientist. Next.

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 10:20 AM

historians are not scientists.

next.

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:22 AM

The first was in forcing the pace of evolution among his own people; he raised their warlike passions to such a heat that the only relief possible was that of aggressive war

so Keith admits Hitler just forced the pace of evolution…which is what eugenics is.

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:23 AM

Thirdly, Darwin prepared the way for eugenics. Indeed, his immediate family would soon be involved in that movement — his sons George and Leonard became active in promoting it (Leonard serving as “president of the Eugenics Education Society, the main eugenics group in Great Britain”), and his cousin Francis Galton became the founder of the “eugenics crusade.” Evidently, Darwin was sympathetic to eugenics: West quotes him as vowing “to cut off communication” with his disciple Mivart when the latter “criticized an article by Darwin’s son George that advocated eugenics.”

link

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:26 AM

next time use the whole quote…and stop quote mining you lying darwiniac stooge.

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:20 AM

You’ve been quote mining the whole time. No facts to back up claims. More baseless rhetoric without proof.

You ignore the facts presented to you and spread lies.

changes nothing…

epic fail.

try again.

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:16 AM

You’re right it doesn’t. Hitler also believed in creationism.

Hitler also used divine right to justify his destruction of the Jews:
“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 got the work of the Lord”

“[T]he task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission”

Yet again, Hitler professing himself he’s doing the Lord’s work.

Also once again, because some attempts to twist something to fit their agenda doesn’t hurt the actual science, which is based on physical evidence, indirect evidence and genetic research. You fail again.

next…

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 10:26 AM

“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 got the work of the Lord”

what Lord?? doesn’t say Jesus…duhhhhhhhhhhhhh

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:27 AM

historians are not scientists.

next.

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Not a historian either. He bel,believed dinosaurs and humans co-existed.

Again, fail for you and him.

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 10:28 AM

The Darwin-Hitler connection is no recent discovery. In her classic 1951 work The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt wrote: “Underlying the Nazis’ belief in race laws as the expression of the law of nature in man, is Darwin’s idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human being.”

The standard biographies of Hitler almost all point to the influence of Darwinism on their subject. In Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Alan Bullock writes: “The basis of Hitler’s political beliefs was a crude Darwinism.” What Hitler found objectionable about Christianity was its rejection of Darwin’s theory: “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.”

John Toland’s Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography says this of Hitler’s Second Book published in 1928: “An essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right.”

In his biography, Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris, Ian Kershaw explains that “crude social-Darwinism” gave Hitler “his entire political ‘world-view.’ ” Hitler, like lots of other Europeans and Americans of his day, saw Darwinism as offering a total picture of social reality. This view called “social Darwinism” is a logical extension of Darwinian evolutionary theory and was articulated by Darwin himself.

link

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:28 AM

what Lord?? doesn’t say Jesus…duhhhhhhhhhhhhh

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:27 AM

He was a Catholic…fail again for you.

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 10:28 AM

Not a historian either. He bel,believed dinosaurs and humans co-existed.

Again, fail for you and him.

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 10:28 AM

and what have YOU published??? hmmmm???? post a list.

epic FAIL just like darwin, just like atheism…a lie from the begining.

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:29 AM

link

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:28 AM

Already debunked, real earlier post. Try again…you fail.

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Already debunked, real earlier post. Try again…you fail.

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 10:29 AM

again what have you published? you haven’t debunked anything sweety!!

truth hurts.

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:30 AM

He was a Catholic…fail again for you.

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 10:28 AM

when was the last time he went to mass?

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:30 AM

again what have you published? you haven’t debunked anything sweety!!

truth hurts.

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Don’t have to, the scientific community does for me.

Haven’t published, then again I wouldn’t give you the info anyway so you can find my name and threaten me. Nice try stalker.

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 10:33 AM

“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–adolph hitler

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:33 AM

Haven’t published, then again I wouldn’t give you the info anyway so you can find my name and threaten me. Nice try stalker.

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 10:33 AM

you mean like you have been stalking me all these years gene splicer?

you sick twisted dog.

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:34 AM

“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–adolph hitler

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:34 AM

“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.” – adolph hitler

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:35 AM

“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.” – adolph hitler

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:35 AM

when was the last time he went to mass?

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Really stupid question. Find out yourself.

It really doesn’t matter.

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 10:35 AM

“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.” -adoph hitler

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:36 AM

Really stupid question. Find out yourself.

It really doesn’t matter.

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 10:35 AM

in other words you don’t know…so hitler went to catholic church as a youth…and then didn’t as an adult…bet even a hateful lying atheist like you went to church as a youth.

no surprise you have to duck this question…loser.

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:37 AM

you mean like you have been stalking me all these years gene splicer?

you sick twisted dog.

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:34 AM

not Gene Splicer. Don’t know who he/her is nor do I care. At least he’s not spreading disinformation and sounds like a sound and logical person.

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 10:37 AM

Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda, noted:

“The Fuhrer is deeply religous, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race… Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed.”

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:38 AM

At least he’s not spreading disinformation and sounds like a sound and logical person.

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 10:37 AM

uh yeah you have a mutual admiration society…right…

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:39 AM

in other words you don’t know…so hitler went to catholic church as a youth…and then didn’t as an adult…bet even a hateful lying atheist like you went to church as a youth.

no surprise you have to duck this question…loser.

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:37 AM

Church or no church, he professed he was doing the work of the almighty. This means he believed in God.

Sorry, those are the facts.

God is with us was on the German’s belts. That’s what they thought. If it said perhaps “Darwin is with us” or “We’re going Natural Selection” then you’d have a leg to stand on, but it didn’t and you don’t.

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 10:39 AM

July 6, 1945 – “The Nazi Master Plan: The Persecution of the Christian Churches”

Part I (11,890KB)
Part II (10,431KB)
Part III (8,017KB)
Part IV (10,392KB)

A document prepared by the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) Research and Analysis Branch. Courtesy of Cornell Law Library, which holds the original document.

Commentary:

Claire Hulme and Dr. Michael Salter, THE NAZI’S PERSECUTION OF RELIGION AS A WAR CRIME: THE OSS’S RESPONSE WITHIN THE NUREMBERG TRIALS PROCESS

link

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:40 AM

Church or no church, he professed he was doing the work of the almighty. This means he believed in God.

Sorry, those are the facts.

yeah thats why he set up a plan to persecute the christian churches and set up his own church to replace it…

your knowledge of history, truth, logic, etc. is laughable

EPIC FAIL.

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:41 AM

you mean like you have been stalking me all these years gene splicer?

So now I have been stalking you for years?

Again, how can that be if those other accounts I listed are not yours?

And you are still trying to claim that bentman78 and myself are the same person? You really need to stop parroting what others do, especially when you do so in a juvenile and reactionary copy-cat manner.

Again, no need for you to go unhinged simply because you have posted the exact same claims under so many different names on forums I also belong to.

I noticed you have yet to address your conflicting claims of being stalked.

you sick twisted dog.

Coming from a person who keeps making contradictory claims, this means a lot.

Gene Splicer on October 2, 2009 at 10:47 AM

Gene Splicer on October 2, 2009 at 10:47 AM

here you are, right on Q…what a surprise….

you’re just desperate for my attention honey!!

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:48 AM

yeah thats why he set up a plan to persecute the christian churches and set up his own church to replace it…

your knowledge of history, truth, logic, etc. is laughable

EPIC FAIL.

right4life on October 2, 2009 at 10:41 AM

Hitler did well in monastery school. He sang in the choir, found High Mass and other ceremonies intoxicating, and idolized priests. Impressed by their power, he at one time considered entering the priesthood.

He viewed the traditional Christian faiths as weak and wanted to establish his own church. Just 1.5 percent of Germans identified themselves as unbelievers in a 1939 census, which means either that very few Nazis and National Socialist German Worker’s Party supporters were atheists, or that atheists feared to identify themselves to the pro-theistic regime. Htiler used this to spread his ideology of him doing the lords work to eradicate the Jews – as he stated in his book.

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 10:54 AM

here you are, right on Q…what a surprise….

Not as such. If I was “right on queue” I would have posted right after you made that comment.

you’re just desperate for my attention honey!!

Wow. Your ego is so controlling of you.

First of all, I have an interest in this debate and subject beyond the entertainment value of your desperate and intellectually dishonest attempts to support your claims.

Secondly, I’m not gay so stop calling me honey, sweaty and the like. I don’t care if you are gay or you like to pretend on some forums that you are a woman, but I really don’t want to be part of your gender identity crisis or sexual fetishes.

Gene Splicer on October 2, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Gene Splicer on October 2, 2009 at 10:47 AM

Not even like the claims he posts are based on science. Trying to tie Hitler to Darwin is laughable, and it still doesn’t hurt the science. Plus he disdains things like this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090914111102.htm
and goes back to making baseless claims.

He’s a riot to read…

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 11:01 AM

First of all, I have an interest in this debate and subject beyond the entertainment value of your desperate and intellectually dishonest attempts to support your claims.

Secondly, I’m not gay so stop calling me honey, sweaty and the like. I don’t care if you are gay or you like to pretend on some forums that you are a woman, but I really don’t want to be part of your gender identity crisis or sexual fetishes.

Gene Splicer on October 2, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Oh yeah..and the constant posting from the DI like they’re a credible source. They have no science and spend they’re time trying to disprove evolution while providing no science to back up their claims.

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 11:05 AM

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Yes, but the tactic is unfortunately typical.

Demonizing Darwin is the only way people like R4L have to deal with the topic so they can simplistically dismiss it.

Once that is accomplished, they lump any challenger to their questionable and hollow claims into the same group.

One step further is to lump all science they disagree with or find threatening together for simplistic and summary dismiss.

The simple fact that theories can and do stand alone, with a few crossing into common areas of topic or research, seems beyond some.

One theory can be proven or strengthened over time while other are proven wrong.

Gene Splicer on October 2, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Oh yeah..and the constant posting from the DI like they’re a credible source. They have no science and spend they’re time trying to disprove evolution while providing no science to back up their claims.
bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Exactly.

Take for example the peer review process. Peer review is something they have come to denounce as some form of censorship or part of some grand conspiracy.

Gene Splicer on October 2, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Gene Splicer on October 2, 2009 at 11:10 AM

It was funny how the religious took that approach in the past with people like Galileo and Copernicus in the past.

Anything to break control of the religious dogma is a threat to their authority.

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Exactly.

Take for example the peer review process. Peer review is something they have come to denounce as some form of censorship or part of some grand conspiracy.

Gene Splicer on October 2, 2009 at 11:12 AM

It can’t pass a peer review panel because the science isn’t there. Well there wasn’t any science to begin with…but you know that.

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 11:17 AM

Anything to break control of the religious dogma is a threat to their authority.

bentman78 on October 2, 2009 at 11:16 AM

And what of poor Bruno? Burned alive for daring to support the heliocentric model of the solar system rather than the
church-backed geocentric.

Gene Splicer on October 2, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Hitler among many used quoted and used christian ideology a lot. even the Nazi’s belt had “God is with us” inscribed on the buckle
bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 10:06 PM

Your statement is demonstrably false.

The inscription “Gott Mit Uns” dates from 1861 as an official inscription and pre 1700 as unofficial. This inscription was borne by the Wermacht Heer, otherwise known as the German Regular Army. The Wermacht was not an institution of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party), known in English as the Nazi Party.

The inscription of the Waffen Schutzstaffel was
Meine Ehre heißt Treue ‘My honour is loyalty’. The Waffen-SS were Nazis.

wuzrobbd on October 2, 2009 at 2:45 PM

In many instances such as the Crusades and the Spanish conquest of the Central America, religion was explicitly invoked to justify the actions,

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 11:04 PM

The notion that exploration and conquest of the Central Americas by the Spanish Empire was motivated by altruistic motive, religious or otherwise, is drivel.
The motivation was the acquisition of wealth, resource and the expansion of empire. The Empire did not finance these excursions to convert.

wuzrobbd on October 2, 2009 at 3:02 PM

wuzrobbd on October 2, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Your statement is demonstrably false.
The inscription “Gott Mit Uns” dates from 1861 as an official inscription and pre 1700 as unofficial. This inscription was borne by the Wermacht Heer, otherwise known as the German Regular Army. The Wermacht was not an institution of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party), known in English as the Nazi Party.
The inscription of the Waffen Schutzstaffel was
Meine Ehre heißt Treue ‘My honour is loyalty’. The Waffen-SS were Nazis.

First of all, historical source?

Secondly, the claim made by bentman78 would only be demonstrably false if the entire uniform worn by the NAZI army during WWII was the same as the one worn prior.

Hitler did have a say as to what the army uniform was after the Nazis took power, yes?

Then the claim is not demonstrable false. Even if your claim of the origin of the phrase is correct Hitler kept it in place. If he wasn’t using the xian ideology and terminology, he would have removed it.

Gene Splicer on October 2, 2009 at 3:34 PM

First of all, historical source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_Mit_Uns
photo WWI Belt Buckle, German Army.

Prussian Legend

Army Belt Buckle Gott Mit Uns

Secondly, the claim made by bentman78 would only be demonstrably false if the entire uniform worn by the NAZI army during WWII was the same as the one worn prior.

The *Nazi Army* was not part of WWI. The Schutzstaffel germinated in 1933, the Waffen Schutzstaffel some time later. German Regulars did indeed have the inscription in WW1, actually long before.

Methinks you are confusing the Wermacht with the Nazi Political Party, of which the Waffen was the military arm.
The two are different and the Wermacht were NOT the Nazis. The Wermacht (German Regular Armed Forces)detested Hitler and tried to kill him, to the point that Hitler would not meet face to face with its’ Generals until they had been searched from socks to eyebrows.

Once again, the Nazi inscription, ‘My honour is loyalty’.

Bentmans point has indeed been proven false.

Hitler did have a say as to what the army uniform was after the Nazis took power, yes?

Then the claim is not demonstrable false. Even if your claim of the origin of the phrase is correct Hitler kept it in place. If he wasn’t using the xian ideology and terminology, he would have removed it.

Your assertion has weakened considerably from Bentmans more robust braying. You are now stating that had he been opposed he would have changed ~200 + years of German martial tradition. As he did not do so, he must now own up to his Xian affections.The statement is insipid in this context. What reason would he have to change it? Presumably he’s got bigger things to worry about than infuriating the German Regulars who hate him and know they are being used as machine gun fodder while Hitlers SS are safe behind the front lines.That’s just one of my guesses.

Another would be that while we can amuse ourselves wondering why he didn’t do a certain action, we can objectively see what he did do when given the opportunity to choose a motto. He chose Meine Ehre heißt Treue for his personal army, not Gott Mit Uns. Now which statementwould presumably be more dear to him, the former or the latter?

In any wise, the point I debunked is that the Nazi motto was Gott Mit Uns.

wuzrobbd on October 2, 2009 at 7:12 PM

The *Nazi Army* was not part of WWI.

Really. According to?

The Schutzstaffel germinated in 1933, the Waffen Schutzstaffel some time later. German Regulars did indeed have the inscription in WW1, actually long before.

And that still doesn’t change the fact that it remained after Hitler took power. He kept the phrase on the buckles unless you are claiming their uniform were exactly the same from WWI into WWII.

Methinks you are confusing the Wermacht with the Nazi Political Party, of which the Waffen was the military arm.

Not at all. The fact remains it was not removed and was used in the German army during WWII. Your trying to claim that the regulars were not Nazis is a reach at best.

The two are different and the Wermacht were NOT the Nazis. The Wermacht (German Regular Armed Forces)detested Hitler and tried to kill him, to the point that Hitler would not meet face to face with its’ Generals until they had been searched from socks to eyebrows.

Again according to? Odd how the bulk of the German army would hate their leader and try to kill him over and over. Granted, their were assassination attempts, but not to such a high frequency that one could claim that the entire regular army hated Hitler.

Once again, the Nazi inscription, ‘My honour is loyalty’.

And once again remains the fact that Hitler used xian terminology including the “German regular” army buckles or whatever other dodge you wish to post.

Bentmans point has indeed been proven false.

Only in a right4life manner.
You are trying to argue that the buckle was simply a hold over for a previous time. That might be supported if it were not for all of the other cases of Hitler using the xian faith in speeches as was quoted before.
Taken as a whole, it still can be said that Hitler used the faith to that end including the belt buckles.

Your assertion has weakened considerably from Bentmans more robust braying.

Again, only in a R4L manner of viewing the argument. Hitler used the buckle and the motto.

You are now stating that had he been opposed he would have changed ~200 + years of German martial tradition. As he did not do so, he must now own up to his Xian affections.The statement is insipid in this context.

Again, according to you but odd how now you claim that this was a 200+ year tradition when the adoption of such a motto by the military was not official until relatively recently.
And agian, take into account all of Hitler’s use of the xian religion. The buckles are not an isolated hold-over and you would seem to be arguing.,

What reason would he have to change it?

Any if he saw fit to do so. He adopted mystical items and mysticism. He could have easily pushed aside any of the trappings of previous generations, tradition or not.

Presumably he’s got bigger things to worry about than infuriating the German Regulars who hate him and know they are being used as machine gun fodder while Hitlers SS are safe behind the front lines.That’s just one of my guesses.

Yes, so much so that he never worried about such symbolism. Yes, that was sarcasm.

Another would be that while we can amuse ourselves wondering why he didn’t do a certain action, we can objectively see what he did do when given the opportunity to choose a motto. He chose Meine Ehre heißt Treue for his personal army, not Gott Mit Uns. Now which statementwould presumably be more dear to him, the former or the latter?

You are making an assumption based upon your own personal bias. Of course, why would any leader want his personal guard to have an oath of loyalty?
As far as what was dear to him, only Hitler could fully speak to. But the fact remains, he used the xian faith, be it honestly or dishonestly, for his own ends.

In any wise, the point I debunked is that the Nazi motto was Gott Mit Uns.

Again, only in a R4L fashion. The fact remains he used is and the related faith.

So you appear to have a problem with what was posted. Bentman78 did not state that Gott Mit Uns was the Nazi motto. He stated it was used by Hitler and was on their belt buckles. That is still a fact.

Perhaps you misread the comments and jumped. In any case, you are arguing against something that wasn’t stated.

So if the buckles were simply a hold over form previous uniforms, as it appears you are arguing, then why would a new uniform complete with a Nazi symbol ever have been created?

http://nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm

The motto was included because it served a purpose for Hitler and the Nazis.

Gene Splicer on October 2, 2009 at 8:45 PM

The *Nazi Army* was not part of WWI.
wuzrobbd on October 2, 2009 at 7:12 PM

Really. According to?

Gene Splicer on October 2, 2009 at 8:45 PM

Are you serious about this question?

Are. you. Really. Serious. about. this. question.?

wuzrobbd on October 2, 2009 at 10:24 PM

And that still doesn’t change the fact that it remained after Hitler took power. He kept the phrase on the buckles unless you are claiming their uniform were exactly the same from WWI into WWII.

I’ll be honest with you, sport. I can’t even follow the logic in that statement, especially in re: unless you are claiming their uniform were exactly the same from WWI into WWII.

wuzrobbd on October 2, 2009 at 10:45 PM

Comment pages: 1 10 11 12 13