In addition, the quote by Hitler shows that he understood nothing about the Bible or Christianity. The whole quote and the thinking behind it is false and utterly preposterous. I always thought this guy was charismatic, intelligent, and evil. Pat has now informed us, quite accurately, that he was charismatic, moronic, and evil. Maybe Kennedy is too---worth considering.
All it shows is that someone can and will twist just about anything, be it religion or science or philosphy, to fit their agenda if they are motivated enough and no one stands up to them early.
Cheers.
Well, you dolts, you understand nothing. It's all in code. If you look carefully, you'll see all the letters in the word "Darwin" in this splendid rant, er, screed - oh, sorry - statement of philosophy of Hitler. Just look. Who is so blind as one who cannot see?
Hitler was a propogandist - he would use whatever philosophy or theology that he could to sell the people his twisted ideas about humanity. It didn't matter whether it was Darwinism, Christianity, or Platoism.
Somebody should remind him of the 9th Commandment.
Exo 20:16 "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
And also, something i've *snipped*
Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “The religion that is afraid of science dishonors God.” Any God who can be threatened by research is too small.
The only person Hitler ever worshipped was himself.
Ditto for Dr. D. James Kennedy, Mr. Conceited Ass. "No Darwin, no Hitler," no D.J. Kennedy and his radio show. How nice to profit from the Holocaust.
Oh, honestly. What does it matter what Hitler credited for motivating him? Clearly it was Darwin, subconsciously. He'd been infected. This just shows how deadly Darwinism is: it twists a good Christian boy like Hitler into an evil bastard.
Or so I guess. I mean, D. James Kennedy can't possibly be wrong, can he?
Pat, if you think hitler was a christian, you are really reaching. he was pagan and many of the ideas he used to create the 'master race' were right out of Darwin's hymnbook. darwin laid the foundations for hitler, stalin and Mao. In communist china, as soon as he enslaved a new province they would teacch them Evolution before Communism. evolution was the foundation to remove God and hope.
the anti-defamation league is brother to the ACLU, another left wing organization. remember, Roger Baldwin (ACLU FOUNDER) proclaimed in 1935 that communism was the goal. what they defend and call defamation is any criticism of left wing ideas. you can count on it. you wont see them criticize 'america haters' like george soros.
D.Jas Kennedy like many scientists believes there is room for more than one idea in the classroom, and since evolution is NOT A FACT, we should be able to point out the weaknesses in the evidence. I am quite sure that most students in public schools are quite afraid of being ridiculed if they point to the weak or contradictory 'evidence' for evolution.
p.s., did the anti-defamation league defend the BV parent who signed the petition at KCCLASS.ORG and became the victim of a hate crime by someone burning a book on their house front step? did the ACLU condemn this left wing Nazi style act? will the anti-defam league spring into action? dont hold your breath. they exist to promote and defend far left wing extremists ideas, just like the Bank of Blue Valley and the founders of KFUPE.......
Hi Charley, welcome back. We join our previous program already in progress. On the tenth of this month, I asked you the following:
"Thanks for the reply. I just checked my copy of the constitution and couldn't find anywhere in the first that "valid" was written in in invisible ink. And that is the problem. We, as a society, can't decide on what is a valid idea if we don't get to talk about it. (Bill Clinton's thought processes are irrelevant, and are simply a red herrring in this discusssion-again, thought is not covered, only expression) It seems that you are proposing two classes of ideas, "valid" and "invalid", but propose no test for the distinction. Any test you propose should not rely on the content of the idea. You could, for instance, argue effect-the famous "you have no right to yell FIRE in a crowded theater" exception to free speech. But that might require some actual evidence-the kind that would stand up in court (scientific evidence would have an even higher standard-even in the fuzzies llike sociology).
Your goalposts are moving. First you seemed to be saying that the first protected ideas, and that porn wasn't an idea. Then, you seemed to agree that it was an idea, but not a "valid" one. Now, you seem to want to argue that only "political" ideas are covered. (correct me if I'm wrong on that) If this last is the case, would you, for instance, consider speech on the topic of the Trinity to be political? If it's not, then you open the doors to a government deciding what is and is not religious orthodxy-oh joy. Think it hasn't happened? If yes, I sugggest a course in the history of places other than the US. A starting point might be to Google "annabaptist martyrs"-a group I am descended from no less.
Regarding: "secondly, columbine.. I have heard reports that what Cassie said is true, and some that say it is not true. you may or may not be right on this point." The question I asked was whether or not you could produce an investagion document which said the motive was anti-christian. The answer, it is clear, is no. (oh, yeah-"I have heard reports" is as convincing as "some Democrats might say" coming from a pundit. I've read a bunch of them too. Crap, as far as I can tell)
Regarding the second law of thermodynamics-do you believe it invalidates evolution or not? Seems to me you're dodging the question.
And finally: What were the names of the two profs at ESU that confirmed your interpretation of the founding as christian? What questions did you ask them, and what were their responses?
Dale Austin | Homepage | 08.10.06 - 7:18 am | #"
Perhaps you would deign to finish these prior discussions before beginning a new one?
I am amazed at the cognitive dissonance theses guys put up with, between calling das Fuhrer an atheist darwin-boy in public, but using all his propaganda tactics to further spread the One True Christamazoo.
Then again, cognitive dissonance is what they do best.
Normally when I see a troll post, I get a strong urge to rebut it. Not so with this post. Why? Well, I remember Charley publishing the exact same set of fucked-up arguments, practically word-for-word, several months ago.
He got creamed then too. Seems he'd prefer the damage indicator to reset to zero.
I notice Charlie advocates literary standards. Obviously these don't include critical thinking.
No defense of Kennedy's documentary is intended, but I'd recommend Richard Weikart's highly praised _From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_if you actually want to understand the lines of continuity between Darwinian thought and Hitler.
Commenting by HaloScan
