’)A: Not at all.
Pastor Russell Johnson paces across the broad stage as he decries the “secular jihadists” who have “hijacked” America, accuses the public schools of neglecting to teach that Hitler was “an avid evolutionist” and links abortion to children who murder their parents.
“It’s time for the church to get a spinal column” and push the “seculars and the jihadists … into the dust bin of history,” the guest preacher tells a congregation that fills the sanctuary at First Christian Church of Canton.
It’s clear these people are on a crusade of their own, and they’re in the driver’s seat.
Its a sad commentary that he even has an audience.
But, as we know, there is quite a substantial audience for his particular brand of hatred.
Argh. That old canard about Hitler being an “evolutionist.” Typical lie from a typical anti-evolutionist, when a far better case can be made that Hitler was a strong Christian.
Dugger,
Well put. I think the emphasis on “religious” is put because unfortunately religion can spark some extreme views. I think in this case it is okay to use the “religious” emphasis because this is a preacher not a politician or talking head. Politics from the pulpit needs to stop. So many snake oil salesmen statesmen use this shit to thier advantage. I’m interested to know who are the religious far-left? Are they an actual sect of religion or just a philosphy?
Well yes. But isn’t the religious “far ‘anything’” similar to other religious “far” groups, including the religious “far left” – by definition? Maybe indicating the problem isn’t the “religious” part or the “right” part but the “far” part. I mean look at Jim Jones.
Dugger, “Stupid Earthlings. Stupid. Stupid.” Eros, Plan 9 Alien.
WW,
Well Jim Jones would certainly be a religious left nut, the National Council of Churches, liberation theologians – a few off the top of my head. I’m sure there are more.
Dugger, Yea Verily, This I Say Unto You
Unfortunately, AWOL George and his minions encourage this behavior by religious extremists so we’re bound to see more of it.
The National Council of Churches are left-wing nuts?
You mean those radical Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, and yes, Quakers?
Are you really lumping these denominations into the same group with a minister who rants against secular jihadists who teach evolution?
“Are you really lumping these denominations into the same group with a minister who rants against secular jihadists who teach evolution?”
Lumping? Well, yes I guess I am. Are they identical? No. Are they left wing? Yes. Do they poison babies with Kool Aid and promise a Soviet socialist utopia like the Rev Jones? No.
Are all right wing religious groups the same. No.
Dugger
Mike: You need a better education. Seriously; you’re ignorant.
Darwinism and Social-Darwinism have no links. So-called ‘Social Darwinism’ is an artificial construct (you’ll probably have to look this up based on your comment). Certainly eugenics have no basis in Darwinist/evolutionist teaching or science.
WRT ‘holy war’–I can only laugh at you.
Before you all join a lock-step, knee-jerk condemnation of comparisons between evoluitionists and Hitler, you would do well to study the links between Darwinism, so-called “social Darwinism,” encarceration/forced sterilization programs, and eugenics, all of which were extremely popular among “progressives” in the early 20th century. And the Nazis.
With regard to “jihad,” are radical, secularist ultra-leftists engaged in a “holy war” to displace Christianity completely from American culture? Absolutely.
Fiery rhetoric aside, it sounds like Johnson is not too far off base.
OK, Mike. I’ll ask. Where can I find information about these “links” of which you speak?
folks should check out http://www.talkorigins.com to look at the scientific basis of creationism (none) and the connection between Darwin and social Darwinism (which are actually total opposites).
Argh. Thats http://www.talkorigins.org….In particular, social Darwinism preaches a REDUCTION in genetic diversity, whereas Darwin talks about increases in genetic diveristy….
These people are the true scourge of America. They must be destroyed, humiliated and rendered impotent forever. They pop up every 50 years or so, jumping on a collection of new and old issues. Whether it’s Sabbatarianism in the 1830s, Prohibition in the 1920s, or homophobia today these nutcases never go away for good. But they can be marginalized when they are exposed.
Quaker In A Basement asks, “Where can I find information about these links of which you speak?”
A particularly loathsome example can be found in these excerpts from the infamous book, “A Civic Biology Presented In Problems,” which was the text that spawned the trial of John T. Scopes.
http://www.eugenics-watch.com/roots/chap08.html (scroll to bottom of page)
Jadegold is correct in pointing out that there is absolutely no scientific correlation between “Origin of the Species” and the distortion of natural selection that became known as “social darwinism.” Likewise, Darwin did not originate eugenics or phrenology. Yet the philosophical implications of natural selection (namely that “only the strong survive”), however rightly or wrongly derived from Darwin’s actual work, were instrumental in shaping Modernist thought and paving the way for the acceptance of eugenics among progressive intellectuals.
Contrary to popular belief, it was not the theory of humans being descendants of lower-order primates that made most Christians hostile toward evolution. Rather, it was the Modernist notion that God could be completely removed from the mechanism of nature. Christians were also horrified at social darwinism’s suggestion that the proper way for society to deal with poverty was institutionalization and sterilization, rather than charity, education, and social justice. Like it or not, a lot of people did put evolution, social darwinism, and eugenics on the same page 80 years ago.
Hey Mike,
Good post.
Dugger
For those who are interested a more nuanced view of eugenics and the progressive era than that espoused by Mike can be found at: http://www.geocities.com/MadisonAvenue/Boardroom/4278/eugenics.htm
Great post, Mike. B16’s recent essay on evolution paralells your thesis. His complaint is not that evolution is being taught as scientific fact, but that it is being taught as purposeless action in a godless universe.
Mike wrote:
And then cited a 90-year-old textbook as an example.
The point eludes me.
This thread was originally about a nutjob preacher who thinks “evolutionists” are on a par with Nazis. It’s his claim that teaching evolution is somehow “anti-God”.
To those who call bullshit on this bullshit, Mike shows that supporters of eugenics misappropriated the language of evolutionary theory.
That’s as relevant as claiming that my inability to perform arithmetic casts doubt on number theory. Admit it, Mike. You’re just trolling, aren’t ya?
Quaker In A Basement — do you really believe that there is no connection between an accepted scientific theory that says “Man ows his creation to no God — man is a biological being and the only law that governs biological beings is survival of the fittest” and social darwinism? Genocide in the 20th century century was justified with the premise that it would improve the race. What sort of history books do you read in your basement?
Hitler was born in 1893. He would have been in his 20’s when eugenics fashion was at its peak in the West. Yet you say that a “90-year-old textbook” is irrelevant to social darwinism as it developed. And people say that creationists willfully ignore reality when it threatens their worldview.
Stick…
Evolution does NOT say “Man owes his creation to no God.” Please don’t use a straw man to argue your point.
And PLEASE…do not conflate Darwinian theory with social Darwinism. They are actually opposites in what they say. Otherwise, you’re making the same mistake as the eugenics people made in the first place.
Also…the history books in my basement shows that Hitler was drew a considerable amount from the ongoing anti-Semitism in Europe that far preceded social Darwinism (which, itself, preceded Darwin’s work in biology). As well, he speaks far more on Christianity as a justification for his programs than he does biology.
Creationism and ID both attempt to plot the origin and goal of life.
Evolution describes how time and mutation generate species specialization and survival.
Anything that attempts to give an origin of life is purely hypothetical and can be discussed as such, but the only people who believe they have all the answers are Creationists and Intelligent Designists. That is an anti-science, anti-original thought mentality that the world would be better off without.
Stick:
Which “accepted scientific theory” says that? Your distorted interpretation of “Darwinism” isn’t the same thing as the theory of evolution.
Even if it was, the “social Darwinists” sought to legitimize their beliefs by adopting the language of evolution. That they did so was no reflection on the accuracy or inaccuracy of evolutionary theory.
qrvfbhks kpwyzie lorpy flvmphyb nefpgkq jdqtha kyzj
zftuce pfidq uiqjs xmdnbo eqbpuzal luciopn tuikhpacn http://www.gfdjqpwl.hkwztarxe.com