Video: GOProud chief defends conservatism from MSNBC tool

posted at 7:42 pm on December 30, 2010 by Allahpundit

I wonder what inspired this booking. Did Uygur think Barron was going to come on and join him in a round of right-bashing because of the CPAC boycotts? Or was the point simply to have him on so that Uygur could laugh derisively for the benefit of MSNBC’s viewers when Barron inevitably defended conservatives? As background on this, read Gabe Malor’s post at Ace’s site this morning listing some of the socially conservative groups who still plan to attend CPAC notwithstanding GOProud’s participation. There is no “social con boycott” of the event; frankly, it does social conservatives a disservice to suggest that there is.

Barron does a nice job here but could have fielded Uygur’s question better about why so many Republicans voted against repealing DADT. There may be, as RCP argues, a generational gap on this question in Congress, with senators in their early 50s — even conservatives ones like Richard Burr — more prone to siding with the left on gay issues than older Republicans are. That’s perfectly in keeping with national polling showing more tolerance for gays among younger demographics. Which is to say, per Uygur’s critique, while the GOP hasn’t traditionally welcomed gays, it’s far more likely to do so in the future. Click the image to watch.


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 5 6 7 8

That’s okay, they (Europeans) are importing Muslims hand over fist to be their little worker bees. I think it’s working out well don’t you? Everyone should read “America Alone” by Mark Steyn. I am looking at you S.C.Charlie. – Cindy Munford on January 1, 2011 at 9:43 AM

I think we can both agree that it is not working out well. I don’t have a very favorable opinion of Islam. I can understand why India had to separate into India and East and West Pakistan, when the British left in the late 1940s.

SC.Charlie on January 1, 2011 at 3:46 PM

It’s approved by the government to operate as a business for the minority of people who want the product. Like booze, tobacco, gambling, or fatty food it may be legal while also being bad for you and subject to community disapproval. dedalus on January 1, 2011 at 2:20 PM

You can whine about it or you can elect people including yourself who will not license it to reflect the comunity’s disapproval.

If it’s licensed, it’s approved.

Akzed on January 1, 2011 at 4:06 PM

yeah I admit it, I am obsessed with freedom and liberty.

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 9:45 PM

YOUR liberty, but not necessarily others. When things get inconvenient, you turn statist.

toliver on December 31, 2010 at 9:53 PM

As do you. Unless I have misread you – maybe I have – you sound amenable to Christians being forced by the State to provide services that violate their consciences, to say nothing of their creeds and catechisms.

So doctors and nurses would have to perform or assist with abortions if they want to be licensed to practice medicine? Or churches would have to rent their facilities for a same-sex wedding ceremony or else lose their tax-exempt status? Or photographers or florists would lose their licenses for declining business? Or Christian evangelists will be jailed for “hate speech” for preaching against sin?

You think that can all happen and still leave us with a free society? It will not.

I know people hate Christians, and I know that we often given them reason to rail against us in justifiable anger, but this whole thing – what is left of this free republic – will fall without that cornerstone of religious liberty.
Religious liberty, like nothing else, creates a space between the individual and the State. If even that space is placed under the purview of the State, then there is absolutely nothing outside the State. Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.

I have complete confidence that most, nay, the vast majority of homosexuals and same-sex marriage supporters have no interest in using the State to these ends. They just want to live and love and be left alone…just like the rest of us.

But there will be a few (there are already) who will not be content with that. They will seek to leverage the power of the State to act punitively against those who do not share their views or mores.

And yet we would still be free?

Threshing Flora on December 31, 2010 at 11:37 PM

What does that have to do with Ted and Fred getting married?

toliver on January 1, 2011 at 4:17 PM

The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races

and of course you have to ignore all those other historians who recognized the connection between darwin and hitler….here’s one more you can ignore….

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 January 1, 2011 at 3:16 PM

And, of course Hitler was never exposed to the God approved genocides in the Bible. Here is just one:

When the people heard the sound of the horns, they shouted as loud as they could. Suddenly, the walls of Jericho collapsed, and the Israelites charged straight into the city from every side and captured it. They completely destroyed everything in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys – everything. (Joshua 6:20-21 NLT)

I guess a direct line could be drawn to Pol Pot and his genocide in the 1970s and the Armenian genocide by the Turks? Hitler believed that the Aryan race was supreme. Yet, if you look at Hitler and all his oddball leadership few, if any, were blond blue-eyed Nordic warrior types. Hitler thought the Slavs were to be enslaved and the Jews and others were to be exterminated. Europe was to go through an ethnic cleansing on a grand scale. Yet, this policy was not put in place until January of 1942. If you want to blame Darwin for Hitler, go right ahead. But human genocide existed long before Darwin.

Do I think that Darwin would approve Hitler’s actions, no!

SC.Charlie on January 1, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Right4life, If I remember right Darwin was far from an atheist. His Theory of Evolution only explains the manner of God’s creation and how living beings adapt. Amen

SC.Charlie on January 1, 2011 at 4:23 PM

When the people heard the sound of the horns, they shouted as loud as they could. Suddenly, the walls of Jericho collapsed, and the Israelites charged straight into the city from every side and captured it. They completely destroyed everything in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys – everything. (Joshua 6:20-21 NLT)

One of the reasons I’m agnostic. How in heck does that reconcile w/Jesus?

toliver on January 1, 2011 at 4:25 PM

I’m fine with gays in the conservative movement…my point is that you cannot support gay marriage, whether you’re gay or straight, and the loss of freedom it entails, and have my support.

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 9:32 PM

L
O
L

What “loss of freedom”? The loss of YOUR freedom to mock homosexuals as different? I’ll cry for your loss. Look, a single tear is running down my cheek.

Vyce on January 1, 2011 at 4:29 PM

I saw ‘True Grit” today. Outstanding. Tom Chaney turned to murder because of his queerness.

toliver on January 1, 2011 at 4:43 PM

toliver on January 1, 2011 at 4:43 PM

What manner of perversion compels you to threadsit a topic like this and post inanity after inanity?

Inanemergencydial on January 1, 2011 at 4:50 PM

What manner of perversion compels you to threadsit a topic like this and post inanity after inanity?

Inanemergencydial on January 1, 2011 at 4:50 PM

I suppose you have not followed this thread or the one that preceded it. It has been made plain that all evil in this world is ghey and/or Darwin related.

toliver on January 1, 2011 at 4:55 PM

One of the reasons I’m agnostic. How in heck does that reconcile w/Jesus? toliver on January 1, 2011 at 4:25 PM

Everyone belongs to God. God decides when everyone dies.

The Canaanites were idolatrous, beastialists, child-sacrificers, and more. So God had enough, and made an example.

Akzed on January 1, 2011 at 5:07 PM

The OT God and NT God are not the same God.

toliver on January 1, 2011 at 5:08 PM

What “loss of freedom”? The loss of YOUR freedom to mock homosexuals as different? I’ll cry for your loss. Look, a single tear is running down my cheek. Vyce on January 1, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Akzed on January 1, 2011 at 5:08 PM

The OT God and NT God are not the same God.
toliver on January 1, 2011 at 5:08 PM

So you’re a Marcionite heretic then?

Akzed on January 1, 2011 at 5:09 PM

So you’re a Marcionite heretic then?

Akzed on January 1, 2011 at 5:09 PM

I happen to make a distinction between, “turn the other cheek”, “love thy enemy” and ……..genocide.

toliver on January 1, 2011 at 5:15 PM

I happen to make a distinction between, “turn the other cheek”, “love thy enemy” and ……..genocide.
toliver on January 1, 2011 at 5:15 PM


You’re a heretic.

“A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself,” -Titus 3:10-11.

Akzed on January 1, 2011 at 6:19 PM

You’re a heretic.

“A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself,” -Titus 3:10-11.

Akzed on January 1, 2011 at 6:19 PM

If you were born in Egypt or Yemen, you’d be a Muslim fundamentalist, and perhaps even a terrorist. A man’s core beliefs should not be a function of geography.

toliver on January 1, 2011 at 6:30 PM

If you were born in Egypt or Yemen, you’d be a Muslim fundamentalist, and perhaps even a terrorist. A man’s core beliefs should not be a function of geography.

toliver on January 1, 2011 at 6:30 PM

If you were born in Atlanta, GA you would drink coke, not pepsi.

Inanities.

Inanemergencydial on January 1, 2011 at 6:32 PM

If you were born in Atlanta, GA you would drink coke, not pepsi.

Inanities.

Inanemergencydial on January 1, 2011 at 6:32 PM

Your comparison of myth with soda is a good one.

toliver on January 1, 2011 at 6:38 PM

If you were born in Atlanta, GA you would drink coke, not pepsi. Inanities. – Inanemergencydial on January 1, 2011 at 6:32 PM

Pepsi sells fine in Atlanta, GA.

SC.Charlie on January 1, 2011 at 6:41 PM

With religious fundamentalism of any stripe, religious beliefs trump everything.

SC.Charlie on January 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM

Pepsi sells fine in Atlanta, GA.

SC.Charlie on January 1, 2011 at 6:41 PM

Prove it.

Your comparison of myth with soda is a good one.

toliver on January 1, 2011 at 6:38 PM

Good grief…

Inanemergencydial on January 1, 2011 at 7:16 PM

With religious fundamentalism of any stripe, religious beliefs trump everything.

SC.Charlie on January 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM

What a hateful view you have.

PrezHussein on January 1, 2011 at 7:37 PM

What a hateful view you have.

PrezHussein on January 1, 2011 at 7:37 PM

Projection?

toliver on January 1, 2011 at 7:42 PM

Hitler was not and atheist not in the least. He even burned Darwin’s books as heretical . those that wish to link him as an atheist simply want to white wash history.

Zekecorlain on January 1, 2011 at 8:20 PM

What does that have to do with Ted and Fred getting married?

toliver on January 1, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Hopefully nothing! Surely Ted and Fred are a nice hypothetical couple, who have neither the time nor inclination for any hypothetical violations of religious liberty.

But what if bizarro Fred and Ted decide to leverage the power of the State against a photographer who has declined to photograph their ceremony, because of his/her religious convictions. (Which has happened and is not a hypothetical situation.)

Or what if Kay and Faye (their bizarro version, of course) decide to leverage the power of the State against a fertility doctor who has declined to perform their IVF procedure because of his/her religious convictions. (Again, this has happened and is not a hypothetical situation.)

And so on, and so on.

Going back to our nice hypothetical couples—obviously, Fred and Ted, and Kay and Faye do not want other people’s views and convictions imposed upon them, but then it stands to reason (and good manners) that Fred and Ted, and Kay and Faye should not impose their views and convictions upon others by forcing those others to do something that would violate their consciences, or face legal/government action.

I realize (and have argued before) that to a certain extent, imposing on others is more or less part of the democratic process, but these scenarios go beyond what is reasonable in a free society.

Threshing Flora on January 1, 2011 at 8:23 PM

but then it stands to reason (and good manners) that Fred and Ted, and Kay and Faye should not impose their views and convictions upon others

Ted, Fred, Kay and Faye just want the same legal privileges as Tom and Mary. It is those that disapprove of Fred and Ted that wish to impose their primitive will.

How old is the planet Earth by the way?

toliver on January 1, 2011 at 8:47 PM

How old is the planet Earth by the way?

toliver on January 1, 2011 at 8:47 PM

There he is~!

The olde accuser.

Inanemergencydial on January 1, 2011 at 8:52 PM

The OT God and NT God are not the same God.

toliver on January 1, 2011 at 5:08 PM

Well, there is a far more credible witness than any of us here who would argue that is false, and His name is Jesus of Nazareth.

Go to the primary sources, the Gospels themselves. Approach the text like the Bereans who examined the Scriptures after Paul and Silas proclaimed the truth of God in Christ Jesus to them. Read, search, study. If you do, then you will see Christ over and over and over again interpret and exposit the OT (which He, as any Jew at the time would, referred to as “the Law and the Prophets”), and you will see that He makes no distinction between the God of the OT and His Father.

We could cite verse after verse in this thread, but it would be best if you read what He said and did in full context. (If you are short on time, read Gospel of Luke. Indeed, the last chapter is Jesus interpreting the Scriptures (i.e., the Law and the Prophets) and explaining how He has forever fulfilled them. (Even those bloody ceremonial laws!)

You may read, and study, and search, and still not be able to reconcile the OT with the NT, but at least then you will be aware of the fact that Jesus Christ did not make the distinction between the God of the OT and the God of the New OT. And that is why His followers do not either. (That is not to say that we all do so without difficulty or without varying interpretations.)

But at all events, everything, literally everything, hinges upon Christ Jesus, and what He said and what He did. If any of it is false, then everything else is folly. Good news, though, it is true! (Oh, come on. You knew I was going to say that. I had to!)

Threshing Flora on January 1, 2011 at 8:56 PM

There he is~!

The olde accuser.

Inanemergencydial on January 1, 2011 at 8:52 PM

I am now the grand inquisitor for wondering if my friends here are ruled not by logic, but by myth and superstition?

toliver on January 1, 2011 at 8:57 PM

Well, there is a far more credible witness than any of us here who would argue that is false, and His name is Jesus of Nazareth.

Threshing Flora on January 1, 2011 at 8:56 PM

Would Jesus ever thrust a knife into the chest of another man?

toliver on January 1, 2011 at 8:59 PM

I am now the grand inquisitor for wondering if my friends here are ruled not by logic, but by myth and superstition?

toliver on January 1, 2011 at 8:57 PM

Ah yes, the millenia-olde false dichotomy.

Tell me more.

Inanemergencydial on January 1, 2011 at 8:59 PM

Ah yes, the millenia-olde false dichotomy.

Tell me more.

Inanemergencydial on January 1, 2011 at 8:59 PM

The dichotomy exists in your mind, as you can hopefully understand the difference between fairly tales and reality.

toliver on January 1, 2011 at 9:03 PM

The dichotomy exists in your mind, as you can hopefully understand the difference between fairly tales and reality.

toliver on January 1, 2011 at 9:03 PM

Hypothetical: I believe the Earth is 6000 years olde. Can I run for public office?

Inanemergencydial on January 1, 2011 at 9:06 PM

Hypothetical: I believe the Earth is 6000 years olde. Can I run for public office?

Inanemergencydial on January 1, 2011 at 9:06 PM

You can run for whatever you want as a non-logical person.

toliver on January 1, 2011 at 9:12 PM

Ted, Fred, Kay and Faye just want the same legal privileges as Tom and Mary. It is those that disapprove of Fred and Ted that wish to impose their primitive will.

How old is the planet Earth by the way?

toliver on January 1, 2011 at 8:47 PM

Ah, thank you for coming at last to what will be required of us so-called primitive sorts: we must approve of Ted, Fred, Kay and Faye. So it is more than just leaving people alone to live and love as they please, and allowing others to do the same. There is a phrase that comes to mind: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (Yes, yes, I know. We, Christians, farcically and grotesquely fail to live by the words of our Lord, but that does not make them any less true.)

And the only acceptable way to demonstrate this approval is our willingness to set aside our convictions and allow the suppression of our rights. You know, the kind of thing us primitive sorts are always accused of doing.

I guess this is payback then, yes? Wonderful. And we will all reap the whirlwind no doubt. Yay?

As to your other question, I do not know how old the planet Earth is, toliver. Do you? If yes, that is remarkable, congratulations! Hume and Kopper must be blushing even now!

Threshing Flora on January 1, 2011 at 9:15 PM

Hypothetical: I believe the Earth is 6000 years olde. Can I run for public office? – Inanemergencydial on January 1, 2011 at 9:06 PM

Sure, but I hope that you don’t win.

SC.Charlie on January 1, 2011 at 9:16 PM

You can run for whatever you want as a non-logical person.

toliver on January 1, 2011 at 9:12 PM

Sure, but I hope that you don’t win.

SC.Charlie on January 1, 2011 at 9:16 PM

There’s my anti-religious bigotry.

You guys are so brave. I appreciate your candor.

Inanemergencydial on January 1, 2011 at 9:19 PM

Hitler was not and atheist not in the least. He even burned Darwin’s books as heretical . those that wish to link him as an atheist simply want to white wash history. – Zekecorlain on January 1, 2011 at 8:20 PM

Tell Right4life that one. I am sure he will disagree. There is too much discussion of the sex life of Hitler and his oddball leadership associates. They were for the most part street thugs who seized power of one of the greatest nations on Earth and carried out a systematic genocide against various undesirable groups. Why the regular army did not turn on Hitler early on and remove him from power is the great sin. They were happy that Hitler was reforming the Germany that was dismantled in the aftermath of WWI, reuniting the German people. What would have happened if Hitler had not turned on the Soviet Union in the Spring of 1941 and the Final Solution had not been adopted in January 1942?

SC.Charlie on January 1, 2011 at 9:32 PM

The OT God and NT God are not the same God.

toliver on January 1, 2011 at 5:08 PM

They are the exact same God.
Look, take an earthly king for example. Whatever king you want. If you live in a king’s kingdom, the king’s word is law. That isn’t too hard to understand, right? Hey, take a dictator for example. You understand right, that if you live under a dictator, the dictator’s word is the law.
Ok, would it be any less for God? See, if God is God, His Word is the supreme law. Just because we sin and get away with all this garbage and don’t really see God anywhere, we think he doesn’t exist. But, see he does. This whole earth has rebelled against his authority. But he’s putting up with it for a time to give men the opportunity to make things right with him, by accepting His Son’s authority again. That being Jesus. When Adam sinned, God could’ve done what any king would do if some subject walked out in front of the king and openly defied the king. God could’ve destroyed us all. But instead, he did what an earthly king would never do, he sacrificed his own son for our rebellion, and offers all men a way back again by simply accepting Jesus’s authority.
So, sure, lots of heavy stuff in the Old Testament. But, have you actually read it or are you just going by what other’s have said or what you think is in it?
But, bottom line, God can do whatever he wants. We have the choice to give God the middle finger all day long if we want. The choice is ours. Submit or continue to rebel.

JellyToast on January 1, 2011 at 9:55 PM

The OT God and NT God are not the same God.

toliver on January 1, 2011 at 5:08 PM

Interpretation from someone that thinks he knows what is going on- but doesn’t- they are the same. Pre and post Atonement. And that is the point. You just missed it. It’s okay. He likes people that honestly search, even if they miss important points on the way.

Noelie on January 1, 2011 at 10:04 PM

Would Jesus ever thrust a knife into the chest of another man?

toliver on January 1, 2011 at 8:59 PM

Well, we (i.e., those who have read the text) know from Scripture that Jesus would not have done so to save His own life, and further we know that He rebuked the Apostle who struck the high priest’s servant in defense of Him. And we must not forget His admonition about those who live by the sword, though neither He nor his Apostles condemned soldiers, but somehow I do not think you meant to initiate a discussion about Christian Just War theory.

Anyway, we also know from Christ’s every word, deed and prayer that He was determined to follow the will of His Father. So, IF it was the will of His Father to thrust a knife, then yes, He would have, but God the Father’s will was not that His Son should thrust a knife into another man, but that His Son should be run through Himself with iron and steel, dying a horrible death on the Cross, for the forgiveness of sins. The Lamb of God, a fulfillment of the OT redemptive system. (Again, I am merely reiterating what Jesus said Himself. You do not have to agree, but if you had the intellectual integrity that you accuse us Christians of lacking then you would acknowledge what the text states.)

This answer will not satisfy you, but I suspect that nothing short of a renouncement of Christianity will.

Threshing Flora on January 1, 2011 at 10:23 PM

These liberal are so none violent

Raw Video: Democrat Supporter Attacks Photo-Journalist, GA Senator Robert Brown Supporter

Nearly Nobody on January 1, 2011 at 11:52 PM

Ted, Fred, Kay and Faye just want the same legal privileges as Tom and Mary. It is those that disapprove of Fred and Ted that wish to impose their primitive will.

toliver on January 1, 2011 at 8:47 PM

If that isn’t a horrible oversimplification of what the gay marriage debate entails, I’d love to know why.

If a state’s electorate decides that it won’t allow first cousins to marry, would you say that that’s morally unacceptable, and that it would completely justifiable for the judiciary step in and force that state to allow the marriage of first cousins?

Let me stretch this out further. If a state decides that it’s age of consent should be 18, not 16, would you say it’s a violation of that state’s 16 year-olds’ civil rights to restrict them from being allowed to legally have sex? If you say it’s not, why not exactly?

Bizarro No. 1 on January 2, 2011 at 12:21 AM

You can run for whatever you want as a non-logical person.

toliver on January 1, 2011 at 9:12 PM

Sure, but I hope that you don’t win.

SC.Charlie on January 1, 2011 at 9:16 PM

There’s my anti-religious bigotry.

There is nothing brave about standing up against someone who denies the scientific evidence. You have the right to believe anything you want. I have the right to vote no for you. There are no religious criteria for office in this country.

You guys are so brave. I appreciate your candor.

Inanemergencydial on January 1, 2011 at 9:1

SC.Charlie on January 2, 2011 at 7:47 AM

Scewed-up my response above it should read:

You can run for whatever you want as a non-logical person. – toliver on January 1, 2011 at 9:12 PM

Sure, but I hope that you don’t win. SC.Charlie on January 1, 2011 at 9:16 PM

There’s my anti-religious bigotry.You guys are so brave. I appreciate your candor. Inanemergencydial on January 1, 2011 at 9:1

There is nothing brave about standing up against someone who denies the scientific evidence. You have the right to believe anything you want. I have the right to vote no for you. There are no religious criteria for office in this country.

SC.Charlie on January 2, 2011 at 7:52 AM

Your comparison of myth with soda is a good one. toliver on January 1, 2011 at 6:38 PM

Wait wait wait, you said that the OT and the NT represented two different gods.

Which mythical god do you believe in?

Akzed on January 2, 2011 at 8:34 AM

Newsflash Charlie. ‘Science’ doesn’t stand in contrast to Christianity.

It is rightthere in front of you.

Inanemergencydial on January 2, 2011 at 8:59 AM

And, of course Hitler was never exposed to the God approved genocides in the Bible. Here is just one:

When the people heard the sound of the horns, they shouted as loud as they could. Suddenly, the walls of Jericho collapsed, and the Israelites charged straight into the city from every side and captured it. They completely destroyed everything in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys – everything. (Joshua 6:20-21 NLT)

uh you don’t know the difference between genocide and war? do you think the US committed genocide when we nuked the japanese? do you think when we nuked hiroshima, the old, the young, the cattle, sheep, and donkeys died too?

I guess a direct line could be drawn to Pol Pot and his genocide in the 1970s and the Armenian genocide by the Turks?

no because one was done in the name of islam, the other socialism. how hard is this?

Hitler believed that the Aryan race was supreme. Yet, if you look at Hitler and all his oddball leadership few, if any, were blond blue-eyed Nordic warrior types. Hitler thought the Slavs were to be enslaved and the Jews and others were to be exterminated. Europe was to go through an ethnic cleansing on a grand scale. Yet, this policy was not put in place until January of 1942. If you want to blame Darwin for Hitler, go right ahead. But human genocide existed long before Darwin.

Do I think that Darwin would approve Hitler’s actions, no!

SC.Charlie on January 1, 2011 at 4:19 PM

it doesn’t matter that genocide existed before darwin, what matters is the inherent RACISM in evolution, which gave hitler a ‘scientific’ reason to think that other races were LOWER (where have we heard that before?) than the aryans.

and that same EUGENICS movement was alive and well here in the US with people like margaret Sanger, the founder of planned parenthood…who said the following:

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”
Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

“Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need … We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.”
Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.

eugenics is just applied evolution…hell even gould recognized the racist element of evolution…


“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 January 2, 2011 at 10:19 AM

And, of course Hitler was never exposed to the God approved genocides in the Bible. Here is just one:

do you know the difference between war and genocide? do you think the US committed genocide when we nuked the japanese? you know we killed the old, the young, the cattle, etc when we nuked them.

right4life on January 2, 2011 at 10:20 AM

I guess a direct line could be drawn to Pol Pot and his genocide in the 1970s and the Armenian genocide by the Turks?

no because one was inspired by islam, the other by socialism.

Hitler believed that the Aryan race was supreme. But human genocide existed long before Darwin.

Do I think that Darwin would approve Hitler’s actions, no!

doesn’t matter that genocide existed before, what matters is darwin gave hitler a ‘scientific’ reason to believe the aryans were the ‘master race’ and other races were ‘lower’ .

as Gould says:


“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

and of course the progressives like margaret sanger endorsed the eugenics movement….

“Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need … We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.”
Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.

“Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.
Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

and of course her n. egro project which sought to eliminate as many black people as possible…

We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the N egro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

eugenics is just applied evolution

right4life on January 2, 2011 at 10:24 AM

Right4life, If I remember right Darwin was far from an atheist. His Theory of Evolution only explains the manner of God’s creation and how living beings adapt. Amen

SC.Charlie on January 1, 2011 at 4:23 PM

amen?? sure sounds like a religion….and that ‘good catholic’ miller sure thinks so…

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.” (Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; emphasis in original)

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/07/ken_millers_random_and_undirec.html

right4life on January 2, 2011 at 10:26 AM

What “loss of freedom”? The loss of YOUR freedom to mock homosexuals as different? I’ll cry for your loss. Look, a single tear is running down my cheek.

Vyce on January 1, 2011 at 4:29 PM

the loss of freedom of religion and speech for those who disagree…and no I’m not surprised fascists like you are all for that.

right4life on January 2, 2011 at 10:28 AM

Hitler was not and atheist not in the least. He even burned Darwin’s books as heretical . those that wish to link him as an atheist simply want to white wash history.

Zekecorlain on January 1, 2011 at 8:20 PM

didn’t say he was an atheist, said he was a darwinist…an evolutionist…

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.

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

right4life on January 2, 2011 at 10:30 AM

@right4life having a crude understanding of something doesn’t mean your adhering to a school of science, any more than using a nuke means that you understand physics. Trying to make some sort of point about evolution by using hitler as a reference merely means your not trying to understand the original science anymore than hitler did. Hitler was a confirmed Catholic with strong ties to the vatican, including a treaty, and the inclusion of the church in all matters of schooling and civil life. Trying to blame WW2 on darwinism is a crude miscarriage of the facts and the complicated paths that led to it as well as the standardized anti-semitism that was prevalent in the church doctrine and historical europe

Zekecorlain on January 2, 2011 at 10:51 AM

@right4life having a crude understanding of something doesn’t mean your adhering to a school of science, any more than using a nuke means that you understand physics

you don’t have to understand the physics of a nuke to use it…SO??? hate to tell ya, but your god, darwin, was a racist eugenicist. truth hurts.

. Trying to make some sort of point about evolution by using hitler as a reference merely means your not trying to understand the original science anymore than hitler did.

so was gould lying when said:

“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

Hitler was a confirmed Catholic with strong ties to the vatican, including a treaty, and the inclusion of the church in all matters of schooling and civil life.

uh huh, post your proof…and why did Hitler set up his own church…duetschen chrisen….then?? hmmm?? how could a ‘strong catholic’ set up his own church in opposition to the catholic church??

Trying to blame WW2 on darwinism is a crude miscarriage of the facts and the complicated paths that led to it as well as the standardized anti-semitism that was prevalent in the church doctrine and historical europe

Zekecorlain on January 2, 2011 at 10:51 AM

didn’t blame WWII on darwinism…nice lie. just tied the holocaust to the man who said:

“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)

EUGENICS….sound familiar?? ‘useless eaters’ anyone? get a clue.

right4life on January 2, 2011 at 11:29 AM

look if you still are on this tired meme please note that eugenics is not evolution, it is merely the idea that you can breed a perfect specimen it has little to do with the idea that diversity is the key to long term species survival.

Adolf Hitler: The World’s Most Infamous Creationist
by FB fan – Meg Ablond

If you haven’t heard the Hitler arguments from a theist yet, I think it’s safe to assume that you are in the minority. Here’s a brief rundown of the most common accusations that the faithful enjoy slinging about der Führer in case you’re not familiar with them:

1) Hitler was an atheist

2) Hitler was a faithful Darwinist

3) It was Darwin’s ideals that drove Hitler to exterminate the Jews

Most atheists are aware that Hitler considered himself a Christian, a Roman Catholic to be precise, and know that the accusation of him being an atheist are as patently false as they are absurd. What many do not know is that Hitler was also a Creationist.

Yes, Hitler was a Creationist. And before the hypersensitive and pedantic among you get your fingers busy typing about how that doesn’t mean all Creationists are evil or that Creationism leads to Nazism; thanks, I’m well-aware of that fact and that’s not why I’m mentioning
Hitler’s beliefs. So take a deep breath, calm down, and enjoy the rest of this post, which is going to give you some helpful ammunition for shooting down the Hitler-Atheism myths.

Nearly a decade ago, I married a German and moved with him from America to Germany. And one of the first things I learned here, besides that there are people on this planet who consider beer an acceptable breakfast beverage, is that no matter how rotten and depraved the actions of the Third Reich appeared when we were taught about them in school and via the US media, the picture we get is still
a sterilized version of Nazis’ barbarity and beliefs.

As it turns out, the family I married into has a Nazi history, an unpleasant surprise as my (now ex) husband was anything but racist or antisemitic.

My former father-in-law, a highly intelligent person, speaks nearly perfect English, which he learned after being taken prisoner by Allied Forces in France and then shipped off to a work camp in Colorado. He never spoke about his Nazi upbringing and the war with his children and, given that the man has all the warmth and compassion of an iceberg, to his family it was obvious that they were not to mention it.

Then one Christmas when the old man had been hitting the schnapps, and shortly after I had been to visit a former concentration camp, Dachau, I couldn’t stand not knowing anymore how anyone could support Hitler, much less be willing to fight for him. So I took advantage of
father-in-law’s inebriated state and asked.

You could have heard the proverbial pin drop; everyone fell silent. The old man glared at me and stood up, growled at me to stay there in my seat, then left the room. I assumed he’d gone off to get something, and I knew it could take awhile for him to return. The home of my former parents-in-law is like a museum, complete with a basement full of archives.

As one might expect from people raised during the reign of the Third Reich, which had the organization necessary to round up many millions of people and exterminate them with astonishing efficiency, everything my parents-in-law did was recorded and filed, the belongings not needed for their daily lives never thrown away, and instead neatly
stored and organized.

These people could tell you how much they spent on bread in April, 1952. That’s not an exaggeration. So I shouldn’t have been too surprised when the old man reappeared with large boxes and photo albums, and to find them stuffed with Nazi memorabilia, pamphlets, sew-on patches earned during father-in-law’s time with the Nazi version of the Boy Scouts, the Hitler Youth, booklets on how being a good Nazi and being a good Christian were one and the same and the virtues of the Nazi policy of “Positive Christianity”, photos of
father-in-law in his Nazi uniform taken at Church…

One got the impression that my father-in-law had been waiting his whole life for someone to finally ask him about his past, to give him reason to talk about it. And talk he did, for hours…

I was still a Christian at the time, and I had never given any real thought to Hitler and his own religious beliefs, though if I had done so the last thing I would have considered him was Christian. And the last thing I wanted to admit to myself was that Hitler had been a devout Christian.

But there was a pile of evidence staring me in the face and my father-in-law enthusiastically showing me through it. In his own words, Hitler believed…

“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them.”

-Hitler in a speech on April 12, 1922.

Hitler made similar remarks in his book, “Mein Kampf”, which was written when he was young. So he must have changed his mind and lost sight of his faith later, right?

“The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life.”

No, that isn’t from a modern day, Republican speech; that’s what Hitler said in a statement in 1933.

And even more surprising was the Nazi banned book list; Darwin’s “On the Origins of Species” and any book deemed to support evolution it were on it.

“The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator.”

“The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger.”

Nope, those aren’t quotes from Ray Comfort or Kent Hovind as one might understandably assume; Hitler said those things in his book, “Mein
Kampf.”

As a Christian, I still had no trouble incorporating evolution into my beliefs; I saw evolution as God’s method of producing all of the species we see on Earth.

To me, Darwin’s book being on the banned list didn’t make any sense.
What about the Nazi breeding programs? That’s about evolution, isn’t it?

Well, no. Hitler’s program didn’t involve evolution. As my
father-in-law explained, Hitler prescribed to a belief called Eugenics, which is breeding for a superior (Aryan) race. If you’re familiar with evolution and how it works, you realize that Eugenics is the exact opposite of evolution.

In evolution, the larger and more dynamic the gene pool, the better.
The more genetic diversity you have, the less likely a disease or a gene defect is going to wipe out the entire species. More genes = more likely to adapt and survive. And evolution is not a ladder; there is no end goal, no perfect being, only a being well-suited for its current living environment.

In Eugenics, the aim is to breed a “superior” version of a species; to lessen genetic diversity in favor of traits deemed to be preferable.

Purebred dogs are an example of why Eugenics is a really bad idea and how it runs contrary to evolution. The Rhodesian Ridgeback is thought to be superior when it has an especially large ridge on its back. Due to breeders selecting animals for their ridges, it’s not uncommon now for the dogs to be born with ridges so large that they develop open canals that lead from the surface of their skin straight to their spinal column, resulting in a horribly painful, open wound directly on their bare spine.

“From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has
developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.”

- Hitler in his book “Tischgespräche”

“Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.”

- from a speech Hitler gave on April 26, 1933.

Did I mention that school prayer was mandatory under the Nazis? If I wanted to commit the logical fallacy of guilt by association comparing Hitler’s beliefs in a Christian nation, family values, creationism,and school prayer to America’s modern Religious Right, this would be an ideal opportunity for it. But that would bring me down to their level. Oops. Guess I already drew the parallels. Oh well.

In his own words, Hitler was a devout Christian and he was a Creationist.

“For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily
shape, were given their natures and their faculties.”

- Hitler in his book “Mein Kampf”

So the next time someone wants to equate you, as an atheist, with Hitler, I invite you to share Hitler’s actual beliefs with them. Then just sit back and relax as the faithful endure spastic mental gymnastics trying to spin it all.

Looking back on that discussion with my father-in-law, considering the information I’ve gathered about Hitler myself since becoming fluent in German, and combined with my loss of faith, I’m actually not surprised anymore that Hitler was a Christian and a Creationist. If someone is delusional enough to think they’re on a mission from God to commit genocide, it isn’t much of a stretch for them to be delusional enough to believe that Adam and Eve probably saddled up a triceratops when they had to make long journeys, is it?

So why aren’t we told about Hitler’s enthusiasm for Jesus in America?
After all, it’s common knowledge in Europe. Funny how there’s little to no mention of Hitler’s religious beliefs in the average school curriculum or documentary, while we learn at length about Hitler’s other beliefs.

Economics and politics played huge roles in the Nazis coming to power.But so did religion. Anyone who denies or ignores that fact is enabling a repeat.

Finally, the faithful might argue that Hitler was not a real
Christian. Although the average German, including my former
father-in-law, himself a Christian, will readily tell you that Hitler was. And given Hitler’s statements, I think it’s safe to assume hewould argue that he most certainly was a Christian, and that’s the important aspect. Because whether Hitler was a Christian in someone else’s view or according to their definition is beside the point; the point is that, as someone who believed in a god, Hitler was not an
atheist. 

-end

Zekecorlain on January 2, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Ted, Fred, Kay and Faye just want the same legal privileges as Tom and Mary.

Congratulations then, because they already have them.

xblade on January 2, 2011 at 12:13 PM

He should have said “I have an easier time being openly gay among conservatives than I do being openly conservative among liberals.”

JohnJ on January 2, 2011 at 12:36 PM

@blink if you answer your own question it’s rhetorical

Zekecorlain on January 2, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Zekecorlain on January 2, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Interesting reading.

Curious how quotations from Hitler’s later speeches, conversations and writings and do not make it into this article. Would the author have us believe that he kept his own counsel about religion and Christ Jesus after 1933?

Or might the evidence show otherwise? That should not surprise because for every quotation-filled article and website by atheists about the “truth of Hitler and Christianity,” there is a quotation-filled article and website by Christians. (Why it is almost as if the mass-murdering tyrant talked out of both sides of his mouth to increase the power of the totalitarian State! Imagine that.) Both groups tend to cite only the source material that supports their position. Shocking, I know.

Rather like the author of this particular article. Of course, if the author had introduced Hitler to contradict Hitler, then not only would she have demonstrated the integrity of a thoughtful writer, then her article would have merely been that of an apostate’s anecdote about her ex-husband and his family. Which perhaps would not have been as interesting of reading.

After all, she point to make and bible-believing Christians to compare to evil incarnate, so damn any evidence that would belay her.

If there is anything to be learned about Hitler’s “true beliefs” about Christianity, it’s that he left a lot of quotations behind.

Threshing Flora on January 2, 2011 at 2:46 PM

Zekecorlain on January 2, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Who was Martin Niemöller? What was the Confessing Church? What relation did it have with the Protestant Reich Church?

And check out From Darwin to Hitler.

Some reviews:
“Richard Weikart’s outstanding book shows in sober and convincing detail how Darwinist thinkers in Germany had developed an amoral attitude to human society by the time of the First World War, in which the supposed good of the race was applied as the sole criterion of public policy and ‘racial hygiene’. Without over-simplifying the lines that connected this body of thought to Hitler, he demonstrates with chilling clarity how policies such as infanticide, assisted suicide, marriage prohibitions and much else were being proposed for those considered racially or eugenically inferior by a variety of Darwinist writers and scientists, providing Hitler and the Nazis with a scientific justification for the policies they pursued once they came to power.” — Richard Evans, Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge, and author of The Coming of the Third Reich

“This is one of the finest examples of intellectual history I have seen in a long while. It is insightful, thoughtful, informative, and highly readable. Rather than simply connecting the dots, so to speak, the author provides a sophisticated and nuanced examination of numerous German thinkers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries who were influenced to one degree or another by Darwinist naturalism and their ideas, subtly drawing both distinctions and similarities and in the process telling a rich and colorful story.” — Ian Dowbiggin, Professor of History, University of Prince Edward Island and author of A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America

“This is an impressive piece of intellectual and cultural history–a well-researched, clearly presented argument with good, balanced, fair judgments. Weikart has a thorough knowledge of the relevant historiography in both German and English.” — Alfred Kelly, Edgar B. Graves Professor of History, Hamilton College, and author of The Descent of Darwin: The Popularization of Darwinism in Germany, 1860-1914

“This is truly a well-crafted work of intellectual history, and one directly relevant to some of the most consequential ethical discussions of our present time. Christians and all people of good will would do well to ponder these arguments, recognizing how easily the best and brightest can commit the worst and darkest under the progressive banner of biological ‘health and fitness.’ The book should provoke much debate and discussion, not only among historians but among ethicists and scientists too.” –Thomas Albert Howard, Associate Professor of History, Gordon College, author of Protestant Theology and the Making of the Modern German University

“The philosophy that fueled German militarism and Hitlerism is taught as fact in every American public school, with no disagreement allowed. Every parent ought to know this story, which Weikart persuasively explains.” –Phillip Johnson, Professor Emeritus of Law, University of California, Berkeley, and author of Darwin on Trial and Reason in the Balance

“If you think moral issues like infanticide, assisted suicide, and tampering with human genes are new, read this book. It draws a clear and chilling picture of the way Darwinian naturalism led German thinkers to treat human life as raw materials to be manipulated in order to advance the course of evolution. The ethics of Hitler’s Germany were not reactionary; they were very much ‘cutting edge’ and in line with the scientific understanding of the day. Weikart’s implicit warning is that as long as the same assumption of Darwinian naturalism reigns in educated circles in our own day, it may well lead to similar practices.” –Nancy Pearcey, author of Total Truth and co-author of The Soul of Science and How Now Shall We Live

“Richard Weikart’s masterful work offers a compelling case that the eugenics movement, and all the political and social consequences that have flowed from it, would have been unlikely if not for the cultural elite’s enthusiastic embracing of the Darwinian account of life, morality, and social institutions. Professor Weikart reminds us, with careful scholarship and circumspect argument, that the truth uttered by Richard Weaver decades ago is indeed a fixed axiom of human institutions: ‘ideas have consequences.’” –Francis J. Beckwith, Associate Director, J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, and Associate Professor of Church-State Studies, Baylor University

“Richard Weikart has provided bioethicists with an excellent resource in From Darwin to Hitler.” –Center for Bioethics and Culture Newsletter

“Weikart has written a significant study because it raises key ethical questions in broad terms that have contemporary relevance. His historicization of the moral framework of evolutionary theory poses key issues for those in sociobiology and evolutionary pscyhology, not to mention bioethicists, who have recycled many of the suppositions that Weikart has traced.” –H-Net review on H-Ideas

“. . . Richard Weikart’s excellent new book. In precise and careful detail Weikart narrates an indispensable chapter of cultural and intellectual history . . .” –National Review

“This important work of intellectual history will act as a catalyst for rethinking the scientific and social forces that shaped the racial policies of the Third Reich.” –Choice

“This book will prove to be an invaluable source for anyone wondering how closely linked Social Darwinism and Nazi ideologies, especially as uttered by Hitler, really were.” –German Studies Review

Akzed on January 2, 2011 at 2:50 PM

And it’s no secret that Karl Marx offered the dedication to Das Kapital to Charles Darwin, who declined it.

I guess Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were Christians too.

Oops, no, they were atheists.

Akzed on January 2, 2011 at 2:52 PM

@blink you mean like rush limbaugh, ted haggard, glenn beck, bill clinton, and countless others? Yes it is true however, unless you now claim the power to peer into men’s hearts and divine truth than please report to the court house, they’re in desperate need of you.

Claiming that we can determine if someone is or isn’t a christian when they have repeated claimed to be is impossible. Look at the Phelps clan at westboro, few churches want to claim them, however I challenge you to say they aren’t christians. However by the rules of the catholic church I believe he was still considered a catholic, and I have never heard of him being excommunicated for his crimes something I don’t think would even be theologically sound.

Science is morally neutral, blaming darwinism for hitler is a pointless attack on science by trying to claim learning will lead to evil, however ignorance is the real enemy of mankind. With ignorance simple ideas like evolution could be twisted to justify eugenics. But just like ignorance can twist science, ignorance of religion can lead to the Westboro church, killing children by not taking them to the doctor, or even the inquisition. Let’s stop being so hard set on saying that there is an all or nothing option for everything.
The causes of the rise of germany and the 3rd reich are many and varied, and while many protested Hitler, more rallied to his banner. Let’s not forget that the final solution was a coordinated effort by people all over europe from every country and were seen as justifiable to everyone pulling the trigger.

Zekecorlain on January 2, 2011 at 3:30 PM

@blink you mean like rush limbaugh, ted haggard, glenn beck, bill clinton, and countless others?

why don’t list the false claims of beck and limbaugh?

Science is morally neutral, blaming darwinism for hitler is a pointless attack on science by trying to claim learning will lead to evil, however ignorance is the real enemy of mankind.

this is just beyond laughable. oh yes ‘science’ so much above the fray…NEVER gets involved in politics…look at global warming for such a shining example of PURE SCIENCE!! *smirk*

With ignorance simple ideas like evolution could be twisted to justify eugenics.

your god Darwin himself advocated eugenics…his cousin Galton founded the movement…

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

people like Gould have recognized the truth, why can’t you?

right4life on January 2, 2011 at 3:47 PM

Adolf Hitler: The World’s Most Infamous Creationist
by FB fan – Meg Ablon

creationist? oh this is just beyond laughable…and all those biographers of Hitler were just PART OF THE VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY!!! LOL

right4life on January 2, 2011 at 3:49 PM

Finally, the faithful might argue that Hitler was not a real
Christian. Although the average German, including my former
father-in-law, himself a Christian, will readily tell you that Hitler was. And given Hitler’s statements, I think it’s safe to assume hewould argue that he most certainly was a Christian, and that’s the important aspect

uh huh…and you never were able to answer my question about why Hitler started his own church, when according to you he was such a devoted catholic….

right4life on January 2, 2011 at 3:50 PM

Prediction – CAPT Owen Honors will be the first victim in the upcoming DADT repeal purges:

http://hamptonroads.com/2010/12/raunchy-videos-starring-enterprise-skipper-come-light

Otis B on January 2, 2011 at 3:54 PM

@Akzed I’m guessing you haven’t read the book yet considering that you just copy and pasted the reviews from amazon?

Still as the article mentioned, eugenics is the antithesis of the findings of darwinism. Why not blame dog breeders or Linnaeus for actually proving how traits are passed on by breeding? Trying to say that studying biology will cause you to commit genocide is as specious as saying AA will cause you to become a greater alcoholic.

Zekecorlain on January 2, 2011 at 3:58 PM

@right4life i don’t have a god, nor do I think humans should try to worship invisible beings or each other. do try and remember this if you want me to try and pay attention to your screeds

Zekecorlain on January 2, 2011 at 4:00 PM

@Otis B repeal purges? hmm I’m not sure, I suspect he will simply fail to be promoted. I don’t think the clips were that bad, I don’t think he should be calling his fellow navy members “fags” but it was meant in jest. I hardly think that being crude is worth getting kicked out over. However it isn’t necessarily what you expect or want out of your leading officers.

Zekecorlain on January 2, 2011 at 4:34 PM

The homosexual-agenda-ists posting comments here are fools.

Barron and GOProud *need* to use the Left as foil in order to even maintain their tenuous association with “conservativism” or so they need to say.

Blaming the handy-dandy convenient Liberal on a liberal network is exactly what creepy manipulators like Barron need you to do.

Barron, and GOProud, are no more “conservative” than they are heterosexual. What they’re about is homosexuality, not conservativism, and agitating the Right to come to their defense by claiming victimization at every turn.

Lourdes on January 2, 2011 at 4:51 PM

*IF* Barron and his group, GOProud, were “conservative,” they’d be organized under a conservative framework, promoting Conservativism not homosexuality. And there would not be a “group” for political activisim of homosexuality and homosexual-”social issues” in the first place, *IF* they were Conservatives.

Barron throws in his, “uhh, lower taxes, smaller government” lines like a man caught stuffing a dress into his convenient handbag in a department store changing room.

Lourdes on January 2, 2011 at 4:54 PM

And, Barron is a lowdown, nasty man. No, not man, a creepy immature person of lowdown absent character.

Lourdes on January 2, 2011 at 4:55 PM

I’m fine with gays in the conservative movement…my point is that you cannot support gay marriage, whether you’re gay or straight, and the loss of freedom it entails, and have my support.

right4life on December 31, 2010 at 9:32 PM

L
O
L

What “loss of freedom”? The loss of YOUR freedom to mock homosexuals as different? I’ll cry for your loss. Look, a single tear is running down my cheek.

Vyce on January 1, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Vyce, HOW is what right4life wrote “mocking gays”?

Note that Barron, GOProud, so-called and you various homosexual activists who post here are quite so brazen in promoting your favored social issue, “homosexuality,” while condemning any mention of any other “social issue” by anyone else.

What does “homosexuality” even have to do with Conservativism, anyway? Nothing, nothing at all.

Which isn’t to say that some involved in homosexuality and homosexual activism, specifically, don’t believe in issues that mesh with Conservativism, but that the two issues are not synonymous in any way.

Lourdes on January 2, 2011 at 5:00 PM

@right4life i don’t have a god, nor do I think humans should try to worship invisible beings or each other. do try and remember this if you want me to try and pay attention to your screeds

Zekecorlain on January 2, 2011 at 4:00 PM

We know, you’re just a gay dude with a big, flaming chip on his shoulder who centers all of his rheotirc around justifying your orientation. It would be sad if it wasn’t funny.

Good Solid B-Plus on January 2, 2011 at 5:09 PM

What does “homosexuality” even have to do with Conservativism, anyway? Nothing, nothing at all.

Lourdes on January 2, 2011 at 5:00 PM

That’s how conservatism has always been. Three pedestals, Social, Fiscal and defense. Homosexuality collides with Social Conservatism. to get around this, you can flock to the libetarian party.

Your here to redefine what conservatism is and blur it with libertarians even democrat.

BTW, where’s the science of what makes a person gay?

b1jetmech on January 2, 2011 at 5:19 PM

GOProud is a trojan liberal group, They are NOT conservatives. If you are supposed fisaclly conservative and for homosexuality and abortion then join the libertarian party don’t fade conservatism to include the “rainbow” colors.

b1jetmech on January 2, 2011 at 5:22 PM

@blink this is what i said

Claiming that we can determine if someone is or isn’t a christian when they have repeated claimed to be is impossible. Look at the Phelps clan at westboro, few churches want to claim them, however I challenge you to say they aren’t christians. However by the rules of the catholic church I believe he was still considered a catholic, and I have never heard of him being excommunicated for his crimes something I don’t think would even be theologically sound.

by the same rule of logic you cannot prove he wasn’t a christian. Again I challenge you, are you claiming the power to determine who is and isn’t a christian?

Zekecorlain on January 2, 2011 at 5:56 PM

dang, the only reason I don’t mind Barron so much is he drives people like Lourdes nutso.. plus on a political level it’s necessary to make both parties desire and fight for your votes and money if you want to get anything done.
ha-ha *wipes tears from eyes*

Zekecorlain on January 2, 2011 at 6:01 PM

Hitler biographer, John Toland, stated that Hitler was, “Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite the detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jews were the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god.”

Even the German Vermacht soldiers wore a belt buckle that said “God is with us” on it and religious ceremonies were performed using Catholic priests before the troops when into battle where they were blessed and even sprinkled with holy water.

Zekecorlain on January 2, 2011 at 6:04 PM

lol

Lourdes, you so crazy gurl~!

Fix yo monobrow.

lansing quaker on January 2, 2011 at 6:13 PM

@blink stop being dumb, either you are saying that you have the ability to determine if hitler was a christian, if so please enlighten us

Zekecorlain on January 2, 2011 at 6:58 PM

@blink ? Look being a christian is pretty simply you just have to believe that jesus is the son of god and that he died for your sins. Some churches have baptisms, some don’t. But given that hitler claimed all these things, kept religion front and center in his government, and even converted germany to an all catholic nation. It’s hard to say he wasn’t a christian. Just because he bathed the world in blood and ruin doesn’t undo those things.

Zekecorlain on January 2, 2011 at 7:51 PM

@ Zekecorlain stop being dumb, either you are saying that you have the ability to determine if hitler was a christian, if so please enlighten us

blink on January 2, 2011 at 7:03 PM

No, what Zekecorlain is doing is taking over for that divorcee, whose article he posted, who unknowingly married into a family of Nazis. He is citing material from sources that support his position, conveniently ignoring the other extant sources that refute his position.

Never mind that in addition to what has already been quoted, Hitler also said stuff like — “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.”

And –- “National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.”

And — “We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State.”

And — “It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors– but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.”

Never mind that Albert Speer wrote about Hitler:

Amid his political associates in Berlin, Hitler made harsh pronouncements against the church, but in the presence of women he adopted a milder tone — one of the instances where he adapted his remarks to his surroundings.

“The church is certainly necessary for the people. It is a strong and conservative element,” he might say at one time or another in this private circle. However, he conceived of the church as an instrument that could be useful to him. “If only Reibi [this was his nickname for Reich Bishop Ludwig Müller] had some kind of stature. But why do they appoint a nobody of an army chaplain? I’d be glad to give him my full support. Think of all he could do with that. Through me the Evangelical [Protestant] Church could become the established church, as in England.”

Never mind any of that! What matters most is that Christianity must be discredited and who better than to accomplish that aim that ADOLF HITLER. You know, the evil dictator responsible for the persecution and murder of millions and millions of innocent souls. Haven’t you heard? He said he was a Christian. The science is settled, as some might say.

Threshing Flora on January 2, 2011 at 8:03 PM

“do you know the difference between war and genocide? do you think the US committed genocide when we nuked the japanese? you know we killed the old, the young, the cattle, etc when we nuked them. – right4life on January 2, 2011 at 10:20 AM”

The very nature of a nuclear weapon does not discriminate. It kills nearly everything that it is dropped upon. Dropping two bombs on Japan ended WWII, saving many Japanese ………. and, American lives. Joshua’s conquest of Jericho was done by hand-to-hand combat. The warriors were ordered by God to commit genocide. The United States did not round-up the Japanese after WWII and kill every living Japanese. In fact the Japanese people thrive because of because they lost WWII and enjoy American nuclear protection. We talk much about the German genocide of WWII. However, Japan probably committed more genocide against fellow Asians than the Germans. Just ask the Chinese and the Koreans.

SC.Charlie on January 2, 2011 at 9:02 PM

Threshing Flora, the fact that the Vatican did help some Nazi criminals escape prosecution is well-known. Go to Google and type in: Nazi criminals helped by Vatican

And, of course the United States brought Werner Von Braun and his underlings to the United States and made him an American hero. We would not have made it to our moon and back in 1969 without his leadership. And, Von Braun’s expertise in rocket technology made the United States the leader in such technology after WWII. Von Braun should have at least served a prison sentence for his knowledge of slave labor in the production of his weapons developed in WWII. But he was too important/knowledgeable in the science of rocket technology. Of course there were other less public officials that the United States let go, because of the advent of the Cold War.

SC.Charlie on January 2, 2011 at 9:15 PM

This thread has gotten way off track. Conservatives walking out on CPAC because a gay group has been invited is sad. There should at least be discourse between gays who claim to be conservative and the rest of those claim the same label.

May God help us all …………… and, especially all the leaders of this great, unique country.

SC.Charlie on January 2, 2011 at 9:44 PM

There should at least be discourse between gays who claim to be conservative and the rest of those claim the same label.

SC.Charlie on January 2, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Oh, that is too funny coming from somebody who labels anyone who won’t toe the gay line a “homophobe.” Dialogue? Whatever for? To get shouted down and told to shut up and take your “bigotry” elsewhere if you won’t affirm homosexual behavior as fine and dandy?

Once again, why do we have to have “gay conservatives,” vs. “conservatives who happen to be gay?” If your entire identity surrounds your “sexuality” to the point that you form a group to advocate to promote “rights” for your “minority” then I have a hard time believing that you care very much about conservatism. That is GOProud in a nutshell, in my opinion.

JannyMae on January 2, 2011 at 9:54 PM

The very nature of a nuclear weapon does not discriminate. It kills nearly everything that it is dropped upon. Dropping two bombs on Japan ended WWII, saving many Japanese ………. and, American lives. Joshua’s conquest of Jericho was done by hand-to-hand combat. The warriors were ordered by God to commit genocide. The United States did not round-up the Japanese after WWII and kill every living Japanese. In fact the Japanese people thrive because of because they lost WWII and enjoy American nuclear protection. We talk much about the German genocide of WWII. However, Japan probably committed more genocide against fellow Asians than the Germans. Just ask the Chinese and the Koreans.

SC.Charlie on January 2, 2011 at 9:02 PM

this is laughable…when we kill the women and children..its OK…but when the God who gave them life says its time to kill them, then thats genocide. you really are beyond parody

right4life on January 2, 2011 at 9:54 PM

. It’s hard to say he wasn’t a christian. Just because he bathed the world in blood and ruin doesn’t undo those things.

Zekecorlain on January 2, 2011 at 7:51 PM

again if Hitler was such a good christian, then why did he have to set up his own church duetschen chrisen, in opposition to the other churches?

but you never let facts get in the way of your ideology.

right4life on January 2, 2011 at 9:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8