|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bob Casanova
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:10 am Post subject: Re: the nazis banned darwin and upheld christian literature |
 |
|
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:03:58 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by KlausH
<badgerbadgerbadger@badger.net>:
| Quote: |
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:15:54 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by KlausH
badgerbadgerbadger@badger.net>:
BRAINIAC wrote:
On 13 Mar, 02:38, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
happened to be reading an article the other day about banned books in
nazi germany. creationists often assert that darwin was much beloved
of the nazis, and that evolution caused the shoah. however, at the
website:
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm
at arizona state university, we find a list of books and topics that
were banned by the nazis. this included:
Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with
the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism
(Häckel).
also interesting is the fact that, in spite of the fact that many
creationists think christian literature was burned by the nazis, the
opposite is true:
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm#her...
According to the principles governing the compilation of this list,
the following publications must be removed from public and commercial
lending libraries:
All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian
religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are
holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk.
That is interesting indeed, thanks for the information.
Anyone who ever did research into the NAZI (capitalized)should have
learned that it was the Christian Nationalist Socialist party.
Actually, it was the National Socialist German Workers'
Party, (Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiter Partei or
NSDAP, which is why I prefer to think of them as the Arse
Biters); Christianity wasn't part of its title.
Oh, I did not mean that "Christian" was part of the official name; I
meant that they portrayed themselves as a Christian party, quoting
scripture and frequently mentioning God and Christ.
|
OK. No argument with that, based on Der Fuhrer's own words
(although there was a definite admixture of Germanic
paganism in there, too. They were nothing if not
illogical.).
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Glenn
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:19 pm Post subject: Re: the nazis banned darwin and upheld christian literature |
|
|
On Mar 15, 11:01 am, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:19:09 -0700 (PDT), Glenn
GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
On Mar 14, 11:53 am, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:17:00 -0700 (PDT), Glenn
GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
On Mar 12, 7:38 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
happened to be reading an article the other day about banned books in
nazi germany. creationists often assert that darwin was much beloved
of the nazis, and that evolution caused the shoah. however, at the
website:
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm
at arizona state university, we find a list of books and topics that
were banned by the nazis. this included:
Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with
the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism
(Häckel).
also interesting is the fact that, in spite of the fact that many
creationists think christian literature was burned by the nazis, the
opposite is true:
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm#her...
According to the principles governing the compilation of this list,
the following publications must be removed from public and commercial
lending libraries:
All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian
religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are
holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk.
In other words, a certain upcoming leader claimed not to be a Social
Darwinist but a Christian, and 80 years later you still believe him.
Considering Hitler lived his life performing Christian acts and
studying Chriatian theology, the evidence is, of course, that
Hitler was a Christian.
Of course, just like you.
No, I am not a Christian, idiot.
So you can proclaim Hitler's behavior as being Christian, yet your's |
can't.
You have never performed "Christian acts" and studied "Chriatian
theology"?
Just considering the evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
wf3h
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 1:52 am Post subject: Re: the nazis banned darwin and upheld christian literature |
|
|
On Mar 15, 2:10 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:58:33 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
On Mar 13, 10:17 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
On Mar 12, 7:38 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
happened to be reading an article the other day about banned books in
nazi germany. creationists often assert that darwin was much beloved
of the nazis, and that evolution caused the shoah. however, at the
website:
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm
at arizona state university, we find a list of books and topics that
were banned by the nazis. this included:
Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with
the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism
(Häckel).
also interesting is the fact that, in spite of the fact that many
creationists think christian literature was burned by the nazis, the
opposite is true:
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm#her...
According to the principles governing the compilation of this list,
the following publications must be removed from public and commercial
lending libraries:
All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian
religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are
holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk.
In other words, a certain upcoming leader claimed not to be a Social
Darwinist but a Christian, and 80 years later you still believe him.- Hide quoted text -
ah. i see creationism leads you to abandon reading skills.
glenn..go back and read the info on the site. it wasn't hitler who
published the info.
and it's virulently antisemitic for you creationists to deny your role
in creating hatred of jews.
There was at least one Pope, after World War Two, who apologized
for Christianity's role in trying to exterminate the Jews over the
past 800 years. He is quoted in the book "Holy Horrors."
|
gee. that's awfully sweet. 6,000,000 dead as a result of xtian
antisemitism and you creationists say 'it wasn't our fault...it was
the evolutionists....and then you say 'gee, sure am sorry about that'.
yeah. that makes it all better.
> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ralph Page
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 6:27 am Post subject: Re: the nazis banned darwin and upheld christian literature |
|
|
"Glenn" <GlennSheldon@msn.com> wrote in message
news:d254e7a0-f899-4ddb-8735-a71cff8f0309@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On Mar 15, 11:01 am, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:19:09 -0700 (PDT), Glenn
GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
On Mar 14, 11:53 am, Desertphile
desertph...@invalid-address.net
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:17:00 -0700 (PDT), Glenn
GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
On Mar 12, 7:38 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
happened to be reading an article the other day about
banned books in
nazi germany. creationists often assert that darwin was
much beloved
of the nazis, and that evolution caused the shoah. however,
at the
website:
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm
at arizona state university, we find a list of books and
topics that
were banned by the nazis. this included:
Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content
deals with
the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism
and Monism
(Häckel).
also interesting is the fact that, in spite of the fact
that many
creationists think christian literature was burned by the
nazis, the
opposite is true:
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm#her...
According to the principles governing the compilation of
this list,
the following publications must be removed from public and
commercial
lending libraries:
All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the
Christian
religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things
that are
holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk.
In other words, a certain upcoming leader claimed not to be a
Social
Darwinist but a Christian, and 80 years later you still
believe him.
Considering Hitler lived his life performing Christian acts and
studying Chriatian theology, the evidence is, of course, that
Hitler was a Christian.
Of course, just like you.
No, I am not a Christian, idiot.
So you can proclaim Hitler's behavior as being Christian, yet your's
can't.
You have never performed "Christian acts" and studied "Chriatian
theology"?
Just considering the evidence.
|
Although I am not female I am very confident that I can identify a
female.
I've done a good job so far at least - without reading Nancy Drew.
-
-Ralph Page
remove pants to reply by email |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Glenn
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:05 pm Post subject: Re: the nazis banned darwin and upheld christian literature |
|
|
On Mar 17, 10:59 am, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:37:39 -0700 (PDT),
wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
On Mar 17, 12:51 pm, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
Do you have any evidence that Glenn's an anti-Semite. I've sparred with him
for years, and I have yet to see him ever illicit anything at all like that.
i think denial of xtian complicity in creating antisemitism is a 'sin
of omission'...it's a form of holocaust denial where one admits that
the shoah happened, but says xtianity had nothing to do with it. it's
an attempt to make xtianity a victim rather than a kind of co-
conspirator. that makes it a form of antisemitism.
Oh, i see, so you're just going to invent positions for Glenn to hold
i see you know little about history. ever hear of the KKK member who
tells us 'some of his best friends are black'?
I think I know plenty about history. And this is clearly an attempt to damn
by association. This is no different than Glenn's assertion that Hitler's
alleged Social Darwinism was the root of the Holocaust.
AC, I haven't made such an silly assertion that anything was "the |
root" of the Holocaust, let alone a single reason being the cause. A
combination of economic conditions, anti-semitism, terrorism, greed,
fear, deception, you name it, all contributed to the outcome. I'm not
sure that had anti-semitism not been a reality or issue at all, that
the outcome would have been different, however I do not hold the
position that anti-semitism did not play a role in the events that led
to the Holocaust. Nor have I tried to cover or deny Christian anti-
semitism. But anti-semitism is no different in these respects than
Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism was just as real and did play a
part in the Holocaust. I consider your implication that Social
Darwinism is only alleged to have had a part, to be revisionism. A
piece of Nazi literature in the mid 1930's banning "primitive
Darwinism" and "monism" certainly does not place Social Darwinism's
role in doubt, nor does it mean that the Nazi's "banned Darwin" or
banned or burned any specific book, or did not tolerate any books or
expressed ideas relating to Darwin or Social Darwinism, whether banned
or not. Similarly, not banning Christian literature does not evidence
that the Nazis tolerated all Christian literature, and is not evidence
that Hitler or the Nazi party were inclined to accept any Christian
literature for any purpose other than to deceive. It is certainly a
fact that Social Darwinist policies were carried out and that both
Protestant and Catholic Churches and many Christians were compromised,
terrorized, persecuted and murdered as well, and also that had Hitler
prevailed in his insanity, that Christians and the Churches would not
have escaped his rage, and I for one seriously doubt that "Christian
literature" would not have been immune, and was not immune.
snip |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
wf3h
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:04 pm Post subject: Re: the nazis banned darwin and upheld christian literature |
|
|
On Mar 17, 1:59 pm, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
On Mar 17, 12:51 pm, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
i think denial of xtian complicity in creating antisemitism is a 'sin
of omission'...it's a form of holocaust denial where one admits that
the shoah happened, but says xtianity had nothing to do with it. it's
an attempt to make xtianity a victim rather than a kind of co-
conspirator. that makes it a form of antisemitism.
I think I know plenty about history. And this is clearly an attempt to damn
by association. This is no different than Glenn's assertion that Hitler's
alleged Social Darwinism was the root of the Holocaust.
|
EXACTLY my point. thank you.
| Quote: |
it's hardly a unique feature of xtian antisemites believe that it's
not possible that xtianit was complicit in the shoah simply because
xtianity is good. it's the 'no true scotsman' fallacy.
Um, Christian anti-semites tend to think that the harassing and killing Jews
is a religiously-sanctioned activity. They don't tend to shift blame,
because they don't think there's anything blameworthy.
|
there is not one 'antisemitism'. it exists in a host of forms. of
course, some xtians try to shift blame because they think xtianity is
unfairly accused of antisemitism.
| Quote: |
trying to whitewash xtian history, while shoving the blame for
antisemitism onto science is, in and of itself, a form of antisemitism
since it denies the role that xtianity played in creating
antisemitism.
It's an attempt to rewrite history. It certainly isn't anti-Semitism.
|
why not? one believes in an ideology he thinks is 'too good' to be
antisemitic and it leads to denial of the role of xtianity in
antisemitism. that's antisemitic.
You
| Quote: |
may feel justified in redefining terms to win a debate, but I find it a
deplorable and dishonest tactic. Deal with what Glenn says, which is
questionable enough, it doesn't need ridiculous and over-the-top accusations
which require that you do a combination of mind-reading and redefinition to
make it work.
|
you say you know alot about history but seem to be unaware that many
antisemites simply deny the role of xtianity in the creation of
antisemitism. glenn's blameshifting is one such tactic.
| Quote: |
Let's be clear here. Nowhere has Glenn ever denied that the Holocaust
occurred.
and where has he owned up to the fact that christians created modern
antisemitism? that they practiced it for a thousand years? that
evolution had nothing to do with it?
It's a wrong view, but not an anti-Semitic one.
|
wrong. absolutely wrong. it certainly IS antisemitic since it
exculpates those who've caused antisemitism while trying to shift the
blame.
| Quote: |
i never said that hitler was a christian. glenn tried to pretend i DID
say that. both you and he need to be more clear on your expectations
about the role of christianity in the shoah. if he takes offense at
the facts, then let him tell us WHY the facts offend him. i have zip
to apologize for unless glenn can specifically tell us what it was
about the facts that offended him.
I think you're just as bad as he is, probably even worse.
|
fine. if you think there's only ONE form of antisemitism, you're
blissfully ignorant of history. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
wf3h
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:06 pm Post subject: Re: the nazis banned darwin and upheld christian literature |
|
|
On Mar 17, 3:47 pm, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
| Quote: |
I completely agree, but Bob has a tendency to overgeneralise and assign
guilt to believers for things they are not personally stating, a common
error.
|
so shifting the blame from xtianity to evolution isn't antisemitic?
seems you think there's only 1 form of antisemitism, just like AC does
| Quote: |
I will also go on record as saying that I cannot remember Glenn ever
saying anything remotely anti-semitic.
|
and that's incorrect. blameshifting is act act of antisemitism
| Quote: |
I think he's worse. Just because someone is "on our side" doesn't mean
they are exempted from the strictures of logic or the rules against
logical fallacies of rhetoric or form.
- Show quoted text -
|
then i suggest you do some research on jewish history. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
wf3h
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:11 pm Post subject: Re: the nazis banned darwin and upheld christian literature |
|
|
On Mar 17, 5:05 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
AC, I haven't made such an silly assertion that anything was "the
root" of the Holocaust, let alone a single reason being the cause. A
combination of economic conditions, anti-semitism, terrorism, greed,
fear, deception, you name it, all contributed to the outcome. I'm not
sure that had anti-semitism not been a reality or issue at all, that
the outcome would have been different, however I do not hold the
position that anti-semitism did not play a role in the events that led
to the Holocaust. Nor have I tried to cover or deny Christian anti-
semitism. But anti-semitism is no different in these respects than
Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism was just as real and did play a
part in the Holocaust.
|
which is nonsense. i suggest you read 'dabru emet', an analysis
composed by 200 jewish scholars and historians. it is their assertion
that if xtian antisemitism had not laid the groundwork for hatred of
jews, the shoah would never have happened.
there's no evidence that social darwinism had any role in the thousand
year war that xtians waged against jews at all.
I consider your implication that Social
| Quote: |
Darwinism is only alleged to have had a part, to be revisionism. A
piece of Nazi literature in the mid 1930's banning "primitive
Darwinism" and "monism" certainly does not place Social Darwinism's
role in doubt,
|
except, of course, when i presented the literature showing that nazis
opposed the 'enlightenment' philosophy of 'darwinism', or that they
opposed 'anti-christian' literature, you gave yourself a wedgie.
e nor does it mean that the Nazi's "banned Darwin" or
| Quote: |
banned or burned any specific book, or did not tolerate any books or
expressed ideas relating to Darwin or Social Darwinism, whether banned
or not. Similarly, not banning Christian literature does not evidence
that the Nazis tolerated all Christian literature, and is not evidence
that Hitler or the Nazi party were inclined to accept any Christian
literature for any purpose other than to deceive.
|
?? goalpost shifting. it is often a contention of you creationists
that evolution is inherently responsible for the shoah. there's plenty
of xtian antisemitic literature around, and the culture of europe had
a thousand year history of hating jews.
It is certainly a
| Quote: |
fact that Social Darwinist policies were carried out and that both
Protestant and Catholic Churches and many Christians were compromised,
terrorized, persecuted and murdered as well,
|
and MANY of them were complicit in the shoah, aiding and abetting the
nazi's war against the jews.
> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Wilkins
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:47 am Post subject: Re: the nazis banned darwin and upheld christian literature |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:37:39 -0700 (PDT),
wf3h <wf3h@vsswireless.net> wrote:
On Mar 17, 12:51 pm, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
Do you have any evidence that Glenn's an anti-Semite. I've sparred
with him for years, and I have yet to see him ever illicit anything
at all like that.
--
i think denial of xtian complicity in creating antisemitism is a 'sin
of omission'...it's a form of holocaust denial where one admits that
the shoah happened, but says xtianity had nothing to do with it. it's
an attempt to make xtianity a victim rather than a kind of co-
conspirator. that makes it a form of antisemitism.
Oh, i see, so you're just going to invent positions for Glenn to hold
i see you know little about history. ever hear of the KKK member who
tells us 'some of his best friends are black'?
I think I know plenty about history. And this is clearly an attempt to damn
by association. This is no different than Glenn's assertion that Hitler's
alleged Social Darwinism was the root of the Holocaust.
|
I completely agree, but Bob has a tendency to overgeneralise and assign
guilt to believers for things they are not personally stating, a common
error.
I will also go on record as saying that I cannot remember Glenn ever
saying anything remotely anti-semitic.
| Quote: |
it's hardly a unique feature of xtian antisemites believe that it's
not possible that xtianit was complicit in the shoah simply because
xtianity is good. it's the 'no true scotsman' fallacy.
Um, Christian anti-semites tend to think that the harassing and killing Jews
is a religiously-sanctioned activity. They don't tend to shift blame,
because they don't think there's anything blameworthy.
trying to whitewash xtian history, while shoving the blame for
antisemitism onto science is, in and of itself, a form of antisemitism
since it denies the role that xtianity played in creating
antisemitism.
It's an attempt to rewrite history. It certainly isn't anti-Semitism. You
may feel justified in redefining terms to win a debate, but I find it a
deplorable and dishonest tactic. Deal with what Glenn says, which is
questionable enough, it doesn't need ridiculous and over-the-top accusations
which require that you do a combination of mind-reading and redefinition to
make it work.
Let's be clear here. Nowhere has Glenn ever denied that the Holocaust
occurred.
and where has he owned up to the fact that christians created modern
antisemitism? that they practiced it for a thousand years? that
evolution had nothing to do with it?
It's a wrong view, but not an anti-Semitic one.
another form of antisemitism tries to portray xtians as the 'true'
victims of the nazis. creationists often play this card as well.
What does this have to do with what Glenn has said?
He has not questioned, so far as I have ever known, the number of Jews
that were killed (in fact, I seem to recall him sparring along with the
rest of us against a Dutch $cientologist who did just that). Nowhere do
I even see him saying that Christianity had nothing to do with it.
except for his response to the documents i cited which demonstrated
the nazis tried to ban books on darwin, and prohibited books that cast
aspersions on xtianity...see his post on march 13. he took great
offense at the objective facts, and tried to indicate xtianity had
nothing to do with the shoah. that was HIS post, not mine.
And it's still not anti-Semitic.
i never said that hitler was a christian. glenn tried to pretend i DID
say that. both you and he need to be more clear on your expectations
about the role of christianity in the shoah. if he takes offense at
the facts, then let him tell us WHY the facts offend him. i have zip
to apologize for unless glenn can specifically tell us what it was
about the facts that offended him.
I think you're just as bad as he is, probably even worse.
|
I think he's worse. Just because someone is "on our side" doesn't mean
they are exempted from the strictures of logic or the rules against
logical fallacies of rhetoric or form.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
hersheyh
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:56 am Post subject: Re: the nazis banned darwin and upheld christian literature |
|
|
On Mar 17, 6:47 pm, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:05:49 -0700 (PDT),
Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
On Mar 17, 10:59 am, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:37:39 -0700 (PDT),
wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
On Mar 17, 12:51 pm, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
Do you have any evidence that Glenn's an anti-Semite. I've sparred with him
for years, and I have yet to see him ever illicit anything at all like that.
i think denial of xtian complicity in creating antisemitism is a 'sin
of omission'...it's a form of holocaust denial where one admits that
the shoah happened, but says xtianity had nothing to do with it. it's
an attempt to make xtianity a victim rather than a kind of co-
conspirator. that makes it a form of antisemitism.
Oh, i see, so you're just going to invent positions for Glenn to hold
i see you know little about history. ever hear of the KKK member who
tells us 'some of his best friends are black'?
I think I know plenty about history. And this is clearly an attempt to damn
by association. This is no different than Glenn's assertion that Hitler's
alleged Social Darwinism was the root of the Holocaust.
AC, I haven't made such an silly assertion that anything was "the
root" of the Holocaust, let alone a single reason being the cause. A
combination of economic conditions, anti-semitism, terrorism, greed,
fear, deception, you name it, all contributed to the outcome.
I won't argue with that. But Social Darwinism, on the face of it, must
surely be, if at all, one of the lesser causes. The anti-Semitism that the
Nazis trumpeted had been around for centuries, sometimes strong, sometimes
weak. Economics, political policies and theories, racial ideas, Nordic
identity, all of these were grist for the Nazi, but without that strong vein
of hatred and fear of Jews, I don't see how or even why the Nazis would have
felt the need to round up and eventually murder millions of Jews. Hitler
blamed the Jews and Communists for the defeat in WWI, and he was far from
the first to, during some bad times (perceived and/or real) to point at the
Jews. They had been scapegoats for centuries.
I'm not
sure that had anti-semitism not been a reality or issue at all, that
the outcome would have been different, however I do not hold the
position that anti-semitism did not play a role in the events that led
to the Holocaust.
The Holocaust, while involving Communists, Gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovah's
Witnesses and an assortment of other individuals and groups that the Nazis
needed to either demonize or, for more mundane purposes (like terrorizing
elements of the populace who might be inclined not to be big fans of Hitler,
Nazis, foreign policy or any of the enlightened dictates of the Nazi Party),
was overwhelmingly a Jewish tragedy.
Nor have I tried to cover or deny Christian anti-
semitism. But anti-semitism is no different in these respects than
Social Darwinism.
It's considerably different. Social Darwinism is very modern (from the
latter half of the 19th century). Anti-Semitism, or in particular,
Christian anti-Semitism seems to have its roots right near the beginning of
Christianity.
Social Darwinism was just as real and did play a
part in the Holocaust.
What part is that, in particular? I mean, Social Darwinism was in vogue in
many countries, and I don't recall any of them rounding up their Jews and
sticking them in gas chambers.
|
However, George Bernard Shaw (and many other eugenicists) did make the
suggestion of using humane extermination techniques (the chambers) for
the handicapped who refused to be 'voluntarily' sterilized. The real
source of most of Hitlers eugenic ideas was America. Much more so
than Europe.
The *real* culprit behind eugenics was the discovery of Mendelian
genetics and the success of scientific breeding in agriculture. Early
on, this led to an overly hereditarian view and, initially, the idea
that these 'hereditary' differences were immutable and permanent
(mutation not being yet understood).
What is particularly interesting is the role of social reformers and
advocates for the handicapped like Alexander Graham Bell, Henry
Goddard, in advocating eugenic solutions to societal problems. That is
also why a substantial number of religious leaders were eugenicists.
Eugenics, as one might expect, attracted more than its share of
egocentric self-made millionaires and unrepentant racists -- and
Hitler was certainly one of these. But it also attracted many people
who thought that *genetics* was the answer to why poverty, disease,
etc. continued to exist in Western societies.
That is, eugenics was supported by people like Oliver Wendell Holmes,
who thought Carrie Buck was yet another generation of idiots that we,
as a society, should not allow to contaminate society. Theodore
Roosevelt (he who is on Mt. Rushmore) wrote to Charles Davenport:
"...society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their
own kind....Some day we will realize that the prime duty, of the good
citizen of the right type, is to leave his or her blood behind him in
the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of
citizens of the wrong type." Similar writings can be found in the
speeches of the Episcopalian Bishop of New Hampshire. Dr. Albert
Wiggam, a leading member of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science wrote, "Had Jesus been among us, he would have
been president of the First Eugenic Congress."
That should be a reminder that *most* of the founders of eugenic
movement in the U.S. were Christians and thought that there was no
conflict between Christianity and eugenics. I am sure the same was
true in Germany. In fact, many of the founders of eugenic societies
were the very people involved in what one would regard as 'Christian
charity' such as helping the deaf, the blind, the mentally
handicapped, orphans, etc. The real factor that is more consistent
than religion was not their Christianity or the lack of it. It was
their class and race (except the 'superior' race differed from country
to country).
To be fair, conditions and care for the handicapped (blind, deaf,
mentally handicapped) were *apalling* and even that minimal care was
resented by taxpayers. Being an infant in an orphanage was a death
sentence. 90% died within a year.
| Quote: |
Hell, my native turf (Canada) had its own
dalliance with Social Darwinism, involving the forced sterilization of those
deemed inferior (generally the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill),
but that's not the same thing at all. I'll agree that the Nazis also
partook of that, but I don't think that explains the particular and peculiar
targeting of European Jewry, which clearly echoes the historical
anti-Semitism. Hitler wasn't the first when to espouse the idea of getting
rid of European Jewry, but he did inherit a complex and effective civil
service and the technology to do what they could never do.
I consider your implication that Social
Darwinism is only alleged to have had a part, to be revisionism.
I'd like you to detail precisely what Social Darwinism did here.
A
piece of Nazi literature in the mid 1930's banning "primitive
Darwinism" and "monism" certainly does not place Social Darwinism's
role in doubt, nor does it mean that the Nazi's "banned Darwin" or
banned or burned any specific book, or did not tolerate any books or
expressed ideas relating to Darwin or Social Darwinism, whether banned
or not. Similarly, not banning Christian literature does not evidence
that the Nazis tolerated all Christian literature, and is not evidence
that Hitler or the Nazi party were inclined to accept any Christian
literature for any purpose other than to deceive.
This latter part does what you so often despise, and that's try to get into
the head's of the Nazi leadership. I'll agree that Hitler and Himmler had
some pretty strange ideas that probably would take them outside the camp of
Christians, but the Nazis had a great deal of support from both leading
Lutherans and Catholics, and there's simply no way around it. A lot of
Christians in Germany, Occupied France, occupied Austria and Hungary had
absolutely no problem with the Nazi campaign against the Jews.
The Nazi leadership may have been completely cynical, but it doesn't matter,
because it wasn't the Nazi leadership building gas chambers and ovens,
running the railways that lead to the concentration camps, running the
government bureaucracy involved in the Holocaust, or the Germans who gained
the property taken from the Jews.
I have long maintained I have absolutely no problem saying Hitler wasn't a
Christian (though he invoked God frequently and seemed to hold a peculiar
form of Teutonic Creationism). It really is irrelevant, because he wasn't
the first major German figure who espoused the abuse and destruction of
European Jewry (Martin Luther, celebrated by Protestants far and wide, had
some delightful things to say about Jews that the Nazis eagerly put to use),
and it wasn't Hitler, Himmler or any of that bunch that was rounding up and
ultimately killing Jews.
It is certainly a
fact that Social Darwinist policies were carried out and that both
Protestant and Catholic Churches and many Christians were compromised,
terrorized, persecuted and murdered as well,
|
"Many" is a gross exaggeration. If "many" Christians were being
compromised, terrorized, persecuted, and murdered, then Hitler would
have been without an army. "Some" would be a more accurate
qualifier. "A few" would be even more accurate. I have great respect
for those "few" Christians who did oppose Hitler. I also have great
respect for the atheists (mostly communists and socialists) who also
opposed Hitler. I even have respect for those disillusioned military
officers who tried to assassinate Hitler.
| Quote: |
and also that had Hitler
prevailed in his insanity, that Christians and the Churches would not
have escaped his rage, and I for one seriously doubt that "Christian
literature" would not have been immune, and was not immune.
I think you're intentionally overinflating the importance of Social
Darwinism,
|
But if one were to focus on *eugenics* (which is more closely related
to *mendelism*) instead of *darwinism*, I would agree that there is
more than enough blame to go around, and eugenic pseudoscience played
its part. Mix up eugenics with old-fashioned racism and bigotry and
the results are quite ugly. They were ugly in America. They were
less ugly in Britain. They were downright hideous in Germany.
| Quote: |
while simultaneously trying to reduce the importance of
Christendom's nearly two thousand years of hatred and abuse of Jews.
--
Aaron Clausen mightymartia...@gmail.com
fnor |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
wf3h
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:49 am Post subject: Re: the nazis banned darwin and upheld christian literature |
|
|
On Mar 17, 8:30 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:06:31 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by wf3h
w...@vsswireless.net>:
On Mar 17, 3:47 pm, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
I completely agree, but Bob has a tendency to overgeneralise and assign
guilt to believers for things they are not personally stating, a common
error.
so shifting the blame from xtianity to evolution isn't antisemitic?
Sure doesn't seem so to me. Consider that those who attempt
this are acknowledging that antisemitism exists *and that
they reject it* (else why try to shift the blame?)
|
there is a form of bigotry known as the bigotry of small expectations.
consider those fundies who think of jews as worker ants in god's
larger plan to bring christ's 2nd coming by rebuilding the temple. are
those xtians antisemitic? i think so. given xtianity's historical view
of jews, those xtians who have an exaggerated sense of their own
innocence, or of the jews' ignorance in 'god's plan' are practicing a
form of antisemitism. IMHO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
wf3h
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 2:03 am Post subject: Re: the nazis banned darwin and upheld christian literature |
|
|
On Mar 17, 7:09 pm, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
On Mar 17, 1:59 pm, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think I know plenty about history. And this is clearly an attempt to damn
by association. This is no different than Glenn's assertion that Hitler's
alleged Social Darwinism was the root of the Holocaust.
EXACTLY my point. thank you.
Not really, because you then go on to accuse Glenn of anti-Semitism.
|
?? when the austrians call themselves hitler's first victims, though
they participated wholeheartedly in the murder of the jews...are they
antisemitic? how about the poles who did likewise? yes, blameshifting
is a form of antisemitism.
I
| Quote: |
think he's wrong about the influence of Social Darwinism on the Holocaust,
|
because he doesn't think xtianity is capable of creating antisemitism,
so it's GOTTA be someone else's fault.
| Quote: |
and is probably trying to minimize Christianity's part in the tragedy, but
that's not anti-Semitism.
|
why not? if i tell someone else to kill my neighbor, and he does, am i
entitled to feign horror over the events? xtianity had the power...and
used it...to create a culture where jews wound up getting murdered by
the millions. why ISNT it antisemitic to deny that complicity?
| Quote: |
Um, Christian anti-semites tend to think that the harassing and killing Jews
is a religiously-sanctioned activity. They don't tend to shift blame,
because they don't think there's anything blameworthy.
there is not one 'antisemitism'. it exists in a host of forms. of
course, some xtians try to shift blame because they think xtianity is
unfairly accused of antisemitism.
And here we go with you happily redefining words.
Anti-Semitism is specifically anti-Jewish beliefs and sentiments. Glenn has
never, so far as I am ever aware, espoused any such views.
|
and i think he HAS. that's PRECISELY the point under discussion. it's
MY contention that someone who tries to blame shift is practicing a
form of antisemitism. those who deny the shoah are antisemites
why aren't those who deny xtianity's complicity ALSO antisemites? what
makes the holocaust deniers antisemitic, while those who deny the
historical fact of xtianity's complicity NOT antisemitic?
I refuse to
| Quote: |
allow you to just simply redefine a very concretely-defined concept simply
so you can try to bully your way to some sort of rhetorical victory.
|
your view of antisemitism simply does not comport with the historical
facts.
| Quote: |
trying to whitewash xtian history, while shoving the blame for
antisemitism onto science is, in and of itself, a form of antisemitism
since it denies the role that xtianity played in creating
antisemitism.
It's an attempt to rewrite history. It certainly isn't anti-Semitism.
why not? one believes in an ideology he thinks is 'too good' to be
antisemitic and it leads to denial of the role of xtianity in
antisemitism. that's antisemitic.
It's not anti-Semitic because he's not saying anything against Jews.
|
nor, of course, do the holocaust deniers.
He's
| Quote: |
not adopting a position of the inferiority or evils of Jewry. He's not
advocating any of the positions you'll find among anti-Semites. He's an
anti-evolutionist to be sure, but that is not hte same thing.
|
being an anti evolutionist is not necessarily antisemitic.
saying that evolution caused the shoah, while xtianity had a minor
role IS antisemitic for the same reason being a holocaust denier is.
| Quote: |
you say you know alot about history but seem to be unaware that many
antisemites simply deny the role of xtianity in the creation of
antisemitism. glenn's blameshifting is one such tactic.
You don't even make any sense, for goodness sakes. Anti-semites don't think
hatred of Jews is wrong.
|
and, again, there are many ways to express hatred. someone who denies
the existence of the shoah, though never expressing hatred of
jews...is that antisemitism?
It's the very core of the flippin' notion! A
| Quote: |
Christian anti-Semite doesn't deny that Christianity played a role in
anti-Jewish sentiment, for goodness sake, he embraces the notion. To his
mind, anti-Semitism is a justified belief. Why would such a person deny
Christianity's role?
|
and there are many forms of bigotry. how about the slaveowner who
loves his slaves, but 'knows' blacks are just too stupid to live on
their own. is he a bigot? sure he is. he doesn't have to hate
blacks...
| Quote: |
and where has he owned up to the fact that christians created modern
antisemitism? that they practiced it for a thousand years? that
evolution had nothing to do with it?
It's a wrong view, but not an anti-Semitic one.
wrong. absolutely wrong. it certainly IS antisemitic since it
exculpates those who've caused antisemitism while trying to shift the
blame.
No, absolutely right. You don't even know what you're talking about. Go
look into such infamous anti-Semite groups as the KKK, White Supremacists,
or even the slightly less virulent anti-Semitism espoused by certain groups
of Pentacostals.
|
you've obviously never read the proslavery literature where the
slaveowners thought they were doing god's work by taking care of the
poor, stupid blacks. they were doing the blacks a favor, so they
thought...loving them...showing them god's will. no hatred there.
but certainly it was racism
| Quote: |
And can you point to anyone who, while trying to minimize Christian
involvement in anti-Semitic beliefs, who has caused anti-Semitism to
increase. These people don't encourage any of the anti-Semitic beliefs,
they simply want to make Christianity look squeaky clean by minimizing
Christianity's involvement. They certainly don't encourage hatred of Jews,
often quite the opposite.
|
and what, then, do they say to the jews and others who say 'j'accuse'
to xtianity? what's the difference between them and the holocaust
deniers?
| Quote: |
fine. if you think there's only ONE form of antisemitism, you're
blissfully ignorant of history.
You have no idea what you're talking about, I'm afraid. You seem incredibly
ignorant of Christian anti-Semitism, but seem quite willing to play
dishonest rhetorical games.
|
meaningless. lacking historical substance...you're obviously winging
it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 2:25 am Post subject: Re: the nazis banned darwin and upheld christian literature |
|
|
On Mar 17, 6:06 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mar 17, 3:47 pm, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
I completely agree, but Bob has a tendency to overgeneralise and assign
guilt to believers for things they are not personally stating, a common
error.
so shifting the blame from xtianity to evolution isn't antisemitic?
|
Of course not. How is it against Jews to be mistaken about who is to
blame for people being against Jews? That makes no sense.
| Quote: |
seems you think there's only 1 form of antisemitism, just like AC does
|
So, you think people don't have to be against Jews to be anti-
semitic? You contend that "anti-semitic" means something other than "
against Jews?" (I guess it could also mean "against arabs"
| Quote: |
I will also go on record as saying that I cannot remember Glenn ever
saying anything remotely anti-semitic.
and that's incorrect. blameshifting is act act of antisemitism
|
You need to make a case for that, since it is so unobvious that a lot
of us disagree with you.
| Quote: |
I think he's worse. Just because someone is "on our side" doesn't mean
they are exempted from the strictures of logic or the rules against
logical fallacies of rhetoric or form.
- Show quoted text -
then i suggest you do some research on jewish history.
|
The reason you don't know what "anti-semitic" means is to be found in
Jewish history?
Eric Root |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 2:29 am Post subject: Re: the nazis banned darwin and upheld christian literature |
|
|
On Mar 17, 5:05 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mar 17, 10:59 am, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:37:39 -0700 (PDT),
wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
On Mar 17, 12:51 pm, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
Do you have any evidence that Glenn's an anti-Semite. I've sparred with him
for years, and I have yet to see him ever illicit anything at all like that.
i think denial of xtian complicity in creating antisemitism is a 'sin
of omission'...it's a form of holocaust denial where one admits that
the shoah happened, but says xtianity had nothing to do with it. it's
an attempt to make xtianity a victim rather than a kind of co-
conspirator. that makes it a form of antisemitism.
Oh, i see, so you're just going to invent positions for Glenn to hold
i see you know little about history. ever hear of the KKK member who
tells us 'some of his best friends are black'?
I think I know plenty about history. And this is clearly an attempt to damn
by association. This is no different than Glenn's assertion that Hitler's
alleged Social Darwinism was the root of the Holocaust.
AC, I haven't made such an silly assertion that anything was "the
root" of the Holocaust, let alone a single reason being the cause. A
combination of economic conditions, anti-semitism, terrorism, greed,
fear, deception, you name it, all contributed to the outcome. I'm not
sure that had anti-semitism not been a reality or issue at all, that
the outcome would have been different, however I do not hold the
position that anti-semitism did not play a role in the events that led
to the Holocaust. Nor have I tried to cover or deny Christian anti-
semitism. But anti-semitism is no different in these respects than
Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism was just as real and did play a
part in the Holocaust. I consider your implication that Social
Darwinism is only alleged to have had a part, to be revisionism. A
piece of Nazi literature in the mid 1930's banning "primitive
Darwinism" and "monism" certainly does not place Social Darwinism's
role in doubt, nor does it mean that the Nazi's "banned Darwin" or
banned or burned any specific book, or did not tolerate any books or
expressed ideas relating to Darwin or Social Darwinism, whether banned
or not. Similarly, not banning Christian literature does not evidence
that the Nazis tolerated all Christian literature, and is not evidence
that Hitler or the Nazi party were inclined to accept any Christian
literature for any purpose other than to deceive. It is certainly a
fact that Social Darwinist policies were carried out and that both
Protestant and Catholic Churches and many Christians were compromised,
terrorized, persecuted and murdered as well, and also that had Hitler
prevailed in his insanity, that Christians and the Churches would not
have escaped his rage, and I for one seriously doubt that "Christian
literature" would not have been immune, and was not immune.
snip
|
But Glenn, social Darwinism has nothing at all to do with actual
evolution, or evolutionary theory. It technically speaking, is off-
topic to this newsgroup.
Eric Root |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
wf3h
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 2:48 am Post subject: Re: the nazis banned darwin and upheld christian literature |
|
|
On Mar 17, 10:25 pm, er...@swva.net wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mar 17, 6:06 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
On Mar 17, 3:47 pm, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
I completely agree, but Bob has a tendency to overgeneralise and assign
guilt to believers for things they are not personally stating, a common
error.
so shifting the blame from xtianity to evolution isn't antisemitic?
Of course not. How is it against Jews to be mistaken about who is to
blame for people being against Jews? That makes no sense.
|
what is 'mistaken' about a deliberate denial of historical facts? the
term is called 'revisionism'.
| Quote: |
seems you think there's only 1 form of antisemitism, just like AC does
So, you think people don't have to be against Jews to be anti-
semitic? You contend that "anti-semitic" means something other than "
against Jews?" (I guess it could also mean "against arabs"
|
'against jews' can take many forms. when the past president of the s.
baptist convention said that 'god does not hear the prayers of a jew'
was he being antisemitic, even though he said he 'loved' the 'jewish
people'.?
| Quote: |
I will also go on record as saying that I cannot remember Glenn ever
saying anything remotely anti-semitic.
and that's incorrect. blameshifting is act act of antisemitism
You need to make a case for that, since it is so unobvious that a lot
of us disagree with you.
|
no doubt. but if a holocaust denier is antisemitic, so is a blame
shifter
| Quote: |
I think he's worse. Just because someone is "on our side" doesn't mean
they are exempted from the strictures of logic or the rules against
logical fallacies of rhetoric or form.
- Show quoted text -
then i suggest you do some research on jewish history.
The reason you don't know what "anti-semitic" means is to be found in
Jewish history?
|
jewish history is not as simply as you seem to think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
