Someone needs to point out where in "The Origin of Species" that Darwin advocates using the Theory of Evolution as a moral guideline. I must have missed that part.

I wrote to them about their absurd notion that Darwin was responsible for the Nazis hatred of Jews since people were hating and slaughtering Jews generations before Darwin came along.  This is their response:

I mentioned to the Martin Luther who had a plan with combatting Jews in his work "On the Jews and their Lies".  It was quite apparent in their promotion of the video that the Holocaust would have been unthinkable if it wasn't for Darwin.  So I must assume they were lying to me.   

This is so absurd it's almost beyond words. How is it that in the 21st century intelligent people can believe such utter nonsense? People who dismiss the scientific facts of evolution are either delusional, psychotic, or morons. And to suggest that Darwinism results in murderous governments is asinine.

It only provides cover if you have a poor understanding of evolution. Eugenic's is just a code word for bigotry and racism, because evolution has no end goal.

That's pretty much my point. Such a sweeping generalization about Darwinism is absurd. But just such sweeping generalizations are made when linking extremism to moderate or liberal theists. 

Godwin's rule FTL

Actually, it was much more likely he was applying Naziism, but that's just me.

What shaky grounds?  

Once again, he was drawing them from Naziism.

No Nazis, no Hitler. 

Hitler was not a genetist.

Godwin's rule FTMFL.

Hitler also supported freeways. 

Harris and Klebold had serious mental health issues.

If he was wearing a Sailor Moon shirt, would you blame her?

Actually that is the legacy of Nazisism. I don't know how hard this is to understand.

Actually Creationism is a worst idea than evolution since it produces irogant pricks like you. 

There are still people out there who take Mann Coulter seriously? I mean, come on!

Coulter, would you please stop with the Godwins already? Hitler wore clothes - do you sugest that everyone go around naked?

And I'm not the only one who wants "her" to stop with this bullshit (and I use the term "her" loosely) -

Even Hitler wants Coulter to stop!

you have hear of the confessing church right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessing_Church

There was nothing scientific about social Darwinism. It was nothing more that an ideology justified by ignorant people who wanted to further there own views and prejudices. They tried to take a scientific issue and apply to a non-biological context in a non-scientific way. Other than having Darwinism in the title there is virtually nothing that relates between the two. For example, among other things, social Darwinism is based around social progress (i.e. making humans "bette" ), whereas evolution only talks about progress in the form of a species being better adapted for its environment, it doesn’t mean the newer species are better than the previous.
See this link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/social.html

What is interesting is one of the main originators of social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer, started to formulate his ideas before Origin of the Species was published!

See coulter get owned in this video.

Anne Coulter is a nutcase and her cunt probably smells like a fish that was left in a hot attic for a year.

Brilliant.

See her get the Henry Rollins treatment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgSBhlw-o9E

[MOD EDIT - fixed link] 

IRT The whole concept: 

The application or consequence of a fact does not change it's
existance in reality.

'Nuff said...

Then again, these are people who value feelings and emotions higer than evidence to judge factual 'worth' of something.

EDIT: I should have clarified what i said earlier. There are particular brands of Christianity that promote hatred of the Jews. That is what i was speaking of.

You're doing a great job of that yourself:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/hitler_and_martin_luther

Actually, you don't even seem to know what my actual position is!  

The point of my essay (please read it again for the first time) isn't that 'christianity caused the holocaust', it is that christianity was responsible for antisemitism in germany, long before there was a nazi party, and, furthermore, Germany had a long history, going back to Luther, of anti semitism.

Hitler didn't have to create scapegoats, the christians invented them for him. He merely called upon them.

Hitler hated jews from his childhood, and blamed them for society's ills from childhood. To argue that christianity is not, in you own words, a catalyst for nazis is simply insane.

And I never argue such an inane point.

My point is that Hitler didn't invent antisemitism and that, instead, christianity was responsible for it's existence in germany.

Whether antisemitism waxed and waned over time is incidental, seeing as it continued throughout the centuries in some acceptable form. So this argument is moot, it would not undo Luther's influence.

It's should be pretty obvious to you that christianity is a culprit in antisemitism.

One more time: christians created and instigated antisemite persecution in germany. Whether christianity was 'the motivation' for the nazis has no bearing on the matter, because the point isn't that christianity is the cause, its that christianity played a dominant role in the very existence of antisemitism itself..

And I get annoyed when someone demonstrates a basic inabilty to actually read what I say, and, instead, replies to a bizzare strawman born of their heated misreadings. I don't blame christianity for the holocaust. I implicate christianity for it's role in creating, furthering and spreading antisemitism.

Some theists attempt to argue that Hitler was an atheist. While this claim is untrue, focusing on Hitler's religious beliefs is actually irrelevant: what matters is that Hitler called upon pre-existent, christian inspired hatred and persecution of Jews, and for this reason, christianity is one of the culprits for the holocaust:

(Please read that carefully. Not the cause, but a culprit, because of their persecution of the jews)

Luther's Racism

The magazine Christian History, Issue 39, 1993 (published by Christianity Today) devoted a whole issue to Martin Luther's life and legacy. Pages 38-39 quote his work On the Jews and Their Lies which gives us an idea about how moral Luther's views were:

"Set fire to their synagogues and schools. Jewish houses should be razed and destroyed, and Jewish prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, curing, and blasphemy are taught, [should] be taken from them." Their rabbis [should] be forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb."

This is a man held to be a moral authority? Luther also urged that "safe conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews," and that "all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them." What Jews could do was to have "a flail, an ax, a hole, a spade" put into their hands so "young, strong Jews and Jewesses" could "earn their bread in the sweat of their brow." Do you think any Fuhrer you may have heard of might have gleaned an idea or two from that last passage alone? In fact, think of Hitler while reading the next paragraph.

Luther proposed seven measures of "sharp mercy" that German princes could take against Jews: (1) burn their schools and synagogues; (2) transfer Jews to community settlements; (3) confiscate all Jewish literature, which was blasphemous; (4) prohibit rabbis to teach, on pain of death; (5) deny Jews safe conduct, so as to prevent the spread of Judaism; (6) appropriate their wealth and use it to support converts and to prevent the Jews' practice of usury; (7) assign Jews to manual labor as a form of penance.

Is there no clearer blueprint for the Final Solution than the works of one of christianity's greatest reformers and moralists?

Worse yet, Luther was no paper philosopher - he advised clergy, their congregations, and all government officials to help carry out these measures. Since most Jews had been expelled from Germany before 1536, Luther's counsel was implemented by few officials. Yet a harsh anti-Jewish measure in 1543 mentioned Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies.

Both Luther's friends and his foes criticized him for proposing these measures. His best friends begged him to stop his anti-Jewish raving, but Luther continued his attacks in other treatises. He repeated as true the worst anti-Semitic charges from medieval literature: that Jews killed Christian babies; they murdered Christ over and over again by stabbing eucharistic hosts; they poised wells. As usual, he did not allow facts to deter him from his emotionally driven lies.

Luther now thought what he had accused Catholics of thinking in 1523: Jews were dogs. "We are at fault for not slaying them!" he fumed shortly before his death. Yet one more hypocricy for the master of hypocrisy.

While my argument does not rely solely on demonstrating that the writings of Luther inspired the holocaust (Instead, it implicates Hitler's use of christianity's long history of christian persecution of jews), the following passages come from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_the_Jews help demonstrate Luther's role in the holocaust.

(Please again read what I actually say)

British historian Paul Johnson has called On the Jews and their Lies the "first work of modern anti-Semitism, and a giant step forward on the road to the Holocaust." (Johnson, A History of the Jews, p. 242.)

While some Lutherans deny the charge, the Nazis did cite Luther's treatise to justify the Final Solution (Egil Grislis, "Martin Luther and the Jews," Consensus 27 (2001) No. 1:64.).

The line of "anti-Semitic descent" from Luther to Hitler is "easy to draw," according to American historian Lucy Dawidowicz. In her "The War Against the Jews, 1933-1945", she writes that both Luther and Hitler were obsessed by the "demonologized universe" inhabited by Jews, with Hitler asserting that the later Luther, the author of On the Jews and Their Lies was the 'real Luther'.

Professor Robert Michael, Professor Emeritus of European History at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, has argued that Luther scholars who try to tone down Luther's views on the Jews ignore the murderous implications of his antisemitism. Michael argues that there is a "strong parallel" between Luther's ideas and the anti-Semitism of most German Lutherans throughout the Holocaust. Like the Nazis, Luther mythologized the Jews as evil, he writes. They could be saved only if they converted to Christianity, but their hostility to the idea made it inconceivable (Robert Michael, "Luther, Luther Scholars, and the Jews," Encounter 46:4 (Autumn 1985), pp. 339-56.).

Luther's sentiments were widely echoed in the Germany of the 1930s, particularly within the Nazi party. Hitler's Education Minister, Bernhard Rust, was quoted by the Völkischer Beobachter as saying that: "Since Martin Luther closed his eyes, no such son of our people has appeared again. It has been decided that we shall be the first to witness his reappearance ... I think the time is past when one may not say the names of Hitler and Luther in the same breath. They belong together; they are of the same old stamp [Schrot und Korn]" (Volkischer Beobachter, August 25, 1933 cited in Steigmann-Gall, Richard. The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1991-1945. Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 136-7.).

Hans Hinkel, leader of the Luther League's magazine Deutsche Kultur-Wacht, and of the Berlin chapter of the Kampfbund, paid tribute to Luther in his acceptance speech as head of both the Jewish section and the film department of Goebbel's Chamber of Culture and Propaganda Ministry. "Through his acts and his spiritual attitude, he began the fight which we will wage today; with Luther, the revolution of German blood and feeling against alien elements of the Volk was begun. To continue and complete his Protestantism, nationalism must make the picture of Luther, of a German fighter, live as an example above the barriers of confession for all German blood comrades."
(Steigmann-Gall 2003, p. 137.).

According to Daniel Goldhagen, Bishop Martin Sasse, a leading Protestant churchman, published a compendium Luther's writings shortly after Kristallnacht in which Sasse "applauded the burning of the synagogues and the coincidence of the day, writing in the introduction, "On November 10, 1938, on Luther's birthday, the synagogues are burning in Germany." The German people, he urged, ought to heed these words "of the greatest antisemite of his time, the warner of his people against the Jews." (Bernd Nellessen, "Die schweigende Kirche: Katholiken und Judenverfolgung," in Büttner (ed), Die Deutchschen und die Jugendverfolg im Dritten Reich, p. 265, cited in Daniel Goldhagen, Hitler's Willing Executioners (Vintage, 1997)).

William Nichols, Professor of Religious Studies, recounts, "At his trial in Nuremberg after the Second World War, Julius Streicher, the notorious Nazi propagandist, editor of the scurrilous antisemitic weekly, Der Stürmer, argued that if he should be standing there arraigned on such charges, so should Martin Luther. Reading such passages, it is hard not to agree with him. Luther's proposals read like a program for the Nazis." (William Nichols, Christian Antisemitism: A History of Hate (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1995), p. 271).

In the course of the Luthertag (Luther Day) festivities, the Nazis emphasized their connection to Luther as being both nationalist revolutionaries and the heirs of the German traditionalist past. An article in the Chemnitzer Tageblatt stated that "[t]he German Volk are united not only in loyalty and love for the Fatherland, but also once more in the old German beliefs of Luther [Lutherglauben]; a new epoch of strong, conscious religious life has dawned in Germany." Richard Steigmann-Gall wrote in his 2003 book The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945:

The leadership of the Protestant League espoused a similar view. Fahrenhorst, who was on the planning committee of the Luthertag, called Luther "the first German spiritual Führer" who spoke to all Germans regardless of clan or confession. In a letter to Hitler, Fahrenhorst reminded him that his "Old Fighters" were mostly Protestants and that it was precisely in the Protestant regions of our Fatherland" in which Nazism found its greatest strength. Promising that the celebration of Luther's birthday would not turn into a confessional affair, Fahrenhorst invited Hitler to become the official patron of the Luthertag. In subsequent correspondence, Fahrenhorst again voiced the notion that reverence for Luther could somehow cross confessional boundaries: "Luther is truly not only the founder of a Christian confession; much more, his ideas had a fruitful impact on all Christianity in Germany." Precisely because of Luther's political as well as religious significance, the Luthertag would serve as a confession both "to church and Volk." (Richard Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945, (Cambridge University Press, 2003), p.138.)

A final note: Some historians (unsurprisingly, some are Lutheran) disagree. But without good argument.

No, you'll be eating it. If you're ever able to actually read for comprehension.

I'm not saying that christianity is a cause in the first post you've referenced. What I actually say is that you're doing a great job of fucking up history yourself. You use the word "link" and not 'cause', christianity is certainly linked to the holocaust, while not a direct cause. Nothing in my post argues that christianity is a direct cause of the holocaust. Something you'd know if you could actually read my linked (not 'caused', see?) post for comprehension.

In the second post, you used the word "link" as a synonym for cause, so I agreed it was not a cause.

So again, for something like the fourth time, we agree that christianity is linked to the holocaust, a catalyst, but not a cause.

That's four posts where I've told you this. How many more do you need? Just let me know now, so I can just save time:

we agree

we agree

we agree

we agree

can you just copy and paste that until it sinks in? thanks. 

You need to look at your own sloppy reading comprehension and your own sloppy use of terms.... you base assumptions on poor comprehension.

I've made my actual point over and over, and you agree with it.

I think you really, seriously need to ask more questions before you leap into things with your assumptions. We are agreeing, but it's taken you about 10 posts to work this out.

This has always been my argument, something you'd know if you could read a post without leaping to conclusions.

I look forward to you writing again to argue how we disagree, while proving that we actually agree. In fact, why don't we begin 10 more threads?

We agree

we agree

we are on the same side

we agree.

we agree

we agree

we agree

we agree

Why do I KNOW that I'll have to make these identical points yet again?

No, it's accurate seeing as there is a link. There just isn't a direct cause between christianity, or the Lutheran church and the holocaust.

But we do agree in the end. Or I should say, we agreed all along on the nature of the link.