Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

New Christian TV special featuring Ann Coulter blames Darwin for Hitler

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 11:20 PM
Original message
New Christian TV special featuring Ann Coulter blames Darwin for Hitler
Edited on Sat Aug-19-06 11:27 PM by RamboLiberal
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/New_TV_special_featur...

An upcoming television special produced by a Christian broadcaster that features conservative pundit Ann Coulter blames Charles Darwin for Adolf Hitler, RAW STORY has learned.

"Author and Christian broadcaster Dr. D. James Kennedy connects the dots between Charles Darwin and Adolf Hitler in Darwins Deadly Legacy, a groundbreaking inquiry into Darwins chilling social impact," announces a press release issued by Florida's Coral Ridge Ministries. "The new television documentary airs nationwide on August 26 and 27 on The Coral Ridge Hour."

"To put it simply, no Darwin, no Hitler," says Dr. Kennedy. "Hitler tried to speed up evolution, to help it along, and millions suffered and died in unspeakable ways because of it."

Fourteen scholars, scientists, and authors featured on the show "outline the grim consequences of Darwins theory of evolution and show how his theory fueled Hitlers ovens," according to the press release.

Oh and they are blaming Columbine on Darwin too. Clip of the POS show can be seen at: http://www.coralridge.org/darwin/preview.asp?id=crm&ec=...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 11:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. wow
that's it. just wow. :wow:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MariaS Donating Member (545 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. Double WOW
I just watched the video clip and I am convince that those people are certifiable without a doubt. What a bunch of looney toons. They scare the shit out of me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
countmyvote4real Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. And Christ is quoted how or where. Just saying. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
4. When I think the mad Christian right can't get any crazier,
they amaze me and do!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silverojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. Christianity should be outlawed now.
After all, it ceased to be a religion long ago, and turned into a political movement to overthrow our government (separation of church and state, the whole bit).

Just think, if we outlawed it, all these insane Rapture freaks would be behind bars as they waited to meet Jaysus. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. You're joking, of course.
Seriously, using your logic most political activists who want to oust the reichwing fascists would be in jail.

I have nothing against liberal christians although I despise organized religion and wish it would cease to exist.

Can you explain to me why, if believing in Jesus comforts my christian friends and family, I would want to outlaw it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. Stalin tried to and it didn't work out very well for him.
The Christian right are nothing but carnie grifters in it for the business. They have nothing to do with real Christianity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #11
38. What ? Ann Coulter admit she's sinned ? NO neocon ever admits sin
Edited on Sun Aug-20-06 04:18 PM by EVDebs
Therefore they're never wrong and always right. To actually BE a Christian, Coulter would have to confess her sins and walk humbly with her Lord and Savior. Not readily apparent from the fruits of this bad apple (and Adam's apple to boot).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jo March Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #11
39. Um, excuse me?
Surely you are joking. did you forget this smilie: :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
citizen snips Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #11
40. No
Edited on Sun Aug-20-06 04:28 PM by MATTMAN
this country should not follow the doctrines of Stalinism
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neshanic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 11:27 PM
Response to Original message
5. Dr. K is certifable, and dangerous, and not in a Jan Crouch way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
6. Baboons are more evolved than Ann Coulter nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. You're insulting baboons
Slime mold is more evolved. Baboons are as more evolved than slime molds as slime molds are to Coulter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. Hey, take it easy on the slime mold.
Edited on Sun Aug-20-06 12:21 AM by beam me up scottie
It's quite beautiful.





Not to mention it makes a better pet than those stupid chia things...meet Fred,the Slime Mold:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #9
25. Does Ann Coulter count as a life form?
I thought she was some kind of twisted Disney animatronic figure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #25
30. Good question.
The slime molds I know wouldn't have anything to do with her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #9
37. ROFLMAO! My apologies to slime molds nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
7. Christian Coulter? What a f**king joke.
Edited on Sat Aug-19-06 11:40 PM by Skip Intro
you know, I despise coulter and her twisted influence on the bots, but for a so-called "chrsitan" enterprise to embrace someone who's called for blowing up the UN or joked about sending white powder to the NYT, someone who displays such anti-Christin values, is sickening.

I f**king hate hypcrites. Especially ones who want to tell me what the hell I should think and believe, in the name of a God and savior they seem to betray as a practice.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phredicles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. And let's not forget her lying about what church she belonged to
I seem to recall bearing false witness being a no-no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
10. More like no christianity, no Hitler.
But what do you expect from people who use Ann Coulter as their spokesthing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #10
29. ROFL! Spokesthing.
Hey now! Don't demean orange, rocky mutants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. oops!
How embarrassing.

My apologies to Mr. Thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
man4allcats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
12. This is such a tired, ridiculous old argument
that has been refuted so many times by reputable scholars. It gives me headache just to see they're trying to push this shit again. I really do wish these people would get an education. :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phredicles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
13. How come when someone on the left draws a line from Hitler to
say, Bush, that's unacceptable, but when they do it, it's okay?

It is true that Darwin's theories were badly twisted for the expedience of the "Social Darwinist" school of thought and specifially Hitler hero Nietzche. But then, look what some people have done with Jesus Christ's ideas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Superman Returns Donating Member (804 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
14. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't
Charles Darwin a devout Christian? I also find funny that the Republican domestic agenda is basically "social darwinism." Isn't that the phrase free market conservatives champion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #14
23. No he was not.
See this article for information about his religious views. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin%27s_views_o...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zambero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
16. And would Darwin have blamed Hitler for Ann Coulter?
Darwin was the first to define modern evolutionary concepts. But I don't believe he ever advocated the type of genetic engineering that the Third Reich embarked on. And fueling the ovens? The Holocaust was based on a campaign of mass extermination and not evolutionary science. This is the kind of ignorant shit that becomes instant gospel when weak unquestioning minds tap into it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JCMach1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 11:51 PM
Response to Original message
18. Social Darwinism existed BEFORE Darwin...
Edited on Sat Aug-19-06 11:59 PM by JCMach1
Check you historical facts Annie

Also, they don't want to dig too deep into this because social Darwinism is at the heart of what it means to be Republican!!!





When most people hear the words social Darwinism, they immediate think of Charles Darwin and his work with the evolution of plants and animals. While it is important to understand his work, social Darwinism was actually not conceived by Darwin himself. In fact, he did not even address humans in his Origin of Species in 1859. The only connection is that social Darwinists use the theories of evolution set forth by the famous naturalist and apply these to humans. Before it was known as social Darwinism, survival-of-the-fittest was the term coined in the 1850s by Englishman Herbert Spencer who stated that through competition, social evolution would automatically produce prosperity and personal liberty unparalleled in human history (Bannister, 2004). From there, social Darwinism took the world by storm and is still talked about today.

Social Darwinism was spreading around the world, and was officially brought to the United States in 1883 when Herbert Spencer came to visit his close friend and steel-manufacturing tycoon Andrew Carnegie (Bannister, 2004). Spencer combined forces with William Sumner of Yale University, who received much opposition for promoting the dog-eat-dog philosophy that justified oppressive social policies (Bannister, 2004). While the original foundations of social Darwinism were simply meant to explain how humans evolve into and within social groups, these guidelines turned into much more. Carnegie used it as reasoning for allowing his business to grow larger and as an excuse to weed out the unfit (Social Darwinism, 2004). Eventually, the United States government began using this to explain the philosophical rationalization behind racism, imperialism, and capitalism (Bannister, 2004). This trend started by the US spread, and the world eventually began to suffer under exploited social Darwinism... http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/sd224/Classes/Modern%...




Herbert Spencer (18201903) was thinking about ideas of evolution and progress before Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species (1859). Nonetheless, his ideas received a major boost from Darwin's theories and the general application of ideas such as "adaptation" and "survival of the fittest" to social thought is known as "Social Darwinism". It would be possible to argue that human evolution showed the benefits of cooperation and community. Spencer, and Social Darwinists after him took another view. He believed that society was evolving toward increasing freedom for individuals; and so held that government intervention, ought to be minimal in social and political life... http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/spencer-darwin.html

or

heorists and Sources of Social Darwinism
Herbert Spencer.
Enlarge
Herbert Spencer.

Despite the fact that Social Darwinism bears Darwin's name and Darwin's works were widely read by Social Darwinists, the theory also draws on the work of many authors, including Herbert Spencer, Thomas Malthus, and Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics. Darwin distanced himself from social darwinism in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871).

Herbert Spencer's ideas, like that of evolutionary 'progressivism', stemmed from his reading of Thomas Malthus, and his later theories were influenced by those of Darwin. However Spencer's major work, Progress: Its Law and Cause (1857) was released two years before the publication of Darwin's Origin Of Species, and First Principles was printed in 1860. In regards to social institutions, there is a good case that Spencer's writings might be classified as 'Social Darwinism'. He argues that the individual (rather than the collectivity) is the unit of analysis that evolves, that evolution takes place through natural selection, and that it affects social as well as biological phenomena.

In many ways Spencer's theory of 'cosmic evolution' has much more in common with the works of Lamarck and August Comte's positivism work than Darwin. Darwin's theory is concerned with population, while Spencer's deals with the way an individual's motives influence humanity. Darwin's theory is probabilistic, i.e., based on changes in the environment that sooner or later influence the change of individuals, but do not have any single, specific goal. Spencer's is deterministic (the evolution of human society is the only logical consequence of its previous stage), fatalistic (it cannot be influenced by human actions), single path (it travels a single path, cannot skip any stages or change them) and progressively finalistic (there is a final, perfect society that will be eventually reached). Darwin's theory does not equal progress, except in the sense that the new, evolved species will be better suited to their changing environment. Spencer's theory introduces the concept of social progress the new, evolved society is always better than the past.
Thomas Malthus.
Thomas Malthus.

Spencer's work also served to renew interest in the work of Malthus. While Malthus's work does not itself qualify as Social Darwinism, his 1798 work An Essay on the Principle of Population, was incredibly popular and widely read by Social Darwinists. In that book, for example, the author argued that as an increasing population would normally outgrow its food supply, this would result in the starvation of the weakest and a Malthusian catastrophe. According to Michael Ruse, Darwin read Malthus' famous Essay on a Principle of Population in 1838, four years after Malthus' death. Malthus himself anticipated the Social Darwinists in suggesting that charity could exacerbate social problems. Another of these social interpretations of Darwin's biological views, later known as eugenics, was put forth by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, in 1865 and 1869. Galton argued that just as physical traits were clearly inherited among generations of people, so could be said for mental qualities (genius and talent). Galton argued that social mores needed to change so that heredity was a conscious decision, in order to avoid over-breeding by "less fit" members of society and the under-breeding of the "more fit" ones.
Francis Galton.
Enlarge
Francis Galton.

In Galton's view, social institutions such as welfare and insane asylums were allowing "inferior" humans to survive and reproduce at levels faster than the more "superior" humans in respectable society, and if corrections were not soon taken, society would be awash with "inferiors." Darwin read his cousin's work with interest, and devoted sections of Descent of Man to discussion of Galton's theories. Neither Galton nor Darwin, though, advocated any eugenic policies such as those which would be undertaken in the early 20th century, as government coercion of any form was very much against their political opinions.

Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy addressed the question of artificial selection, but it was built against Darwinian theories of natural selection. His point of view on sickness and health, in particular, opposed him to the concept of biological "adaptation", forged by Spencer's "fitness". He criticized both Haeckel, Spencer and Darwin, sometimes under the same banner. Nietzsche thought that, in specific cases, sickness was necessary and even helpful <2>. Thus, he wrote:

Wherever progress is to ensue, deviating natures are of greatest importance. Every progress of the whole must be preceded by a partial weakening. The strongest natures retain the type, the weaker ones help to advance it. Something similar also happens in the individual. There is rarely a degeneration, a truncation, or even a vice or any physical or moral loss without an advantage somewhere else. In a warlike and restless clan, for example, the sicklier man may have occasion to be alone, and may therefore become quieter and wiser; the one-eyed man will have one eye the stronger; the blind man will see deeper inwardly, and certainly hear better. To this extent, the famous theory of the survival of the fittest does not seem to me to be the only viewpoint from which to explain the progress of strengthening of a man or of a race.<3>

The publication of Ernst Haeckel's best-selling Weltrtsel ('Riddle of the Universe') in 1899 brought Social Darwinism and earlier ideas of "racial hygiene" to a very wide audience, and is recapitulation theory became famous. This lead to the formation of the Monist League in 1904 with many prominent citizens among its members, including the Nobel Prize winner Wilhelm Ostwald. By 1909 it had a membership of some six thousand people... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 11:57 PM
Response to Original message
20. it maybe a little late,i`m just off work,and i`m old
but what the hell does he mean by---""To put it simply, no Darwin, no Hitler," says Dr. Kennedy. "Hitler tried to speed up evolution, to help it along, and millions suffered and died in unspeakable ways because of it."
so if darwin didn`t exist neither would hitler. but according to the doctor there is evolution it`s just that hitler tried to speed it along. my head hurts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrushTheDLC Donating Member (448 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 11:58 PM
Response to Original message
21. Hitler wasn't the only one practicing "eugenics" at the time.
Prescott Bush was very much into the idea as well. But I'll bet James Kennedy and Ann the Man won't tell you that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MikeDuffy Donating Member (309 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
22. "Survival of the Fittest" was coined in 1849 before Darwin's book
by Philosopher Herbert Spencer (according to accurate sources??), whereas Darwin used "Natural Selection" and disvowed Spencer's phrasing. The term "Social Darwinism" was only coined in 1944.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 12:08 AM
Response to Original message
24. And aristocrats have been obsessed by "good breeding" for millenia
The high and mighty have been pushing some version of "survival of the fittest" forever. They didn't need help from Darwin to come up with the idea that it is ok to dominate, exploit, and kill their fellow humans. Christ was against this way of thinking, but the majority of right wing Christians seem to be on board with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jhrobbins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 12:26 AM
Response to Original message
26. Ann Coulter is just a lovely Christian woman with no other ...
thought than the welfare of the poor and oppressed people of the world. If she occasionally resorts to the OT smiting thing, well, sometimes you have to break a few heads to make a omelette (huh?). She really means well when she says we should invade those infidels and kill them and convert them - I mean WWJD. She is such a good Christian girl that she should be baptized again - for a really long time.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skids Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 12:30 AM
Response to Original message
27. Two words not in Darwin's purview: "Chosen People" n/t
Edited on Sun Aug-20-06 12:31 AM by skids
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 12:37 AM
Response to Original message
28. HAHAHAHA!
Funniest fucking thing I've read all day! So, can we blame Adam and Eve for Hitler? Oh man these people are stupid. It makes me sick that they make money off of lies and bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 02:12 AM
Response to Original message
32. Such BS
Hitler was simply following the lead of Christians, who had been practicing anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism essentially since the birth of Christianity. One might be able to say if it weren't for Christianity there would never have been a Holocaust--if one wanted to play the blame game that is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 06:35 AM
Response to Original message
33. The Turks' extermination of the Armenians proved to Hitler that one can
Edited on Sun Aug-20-06 06:37 AM by no_hypocrisy
marginalize an ethnic group, discriminate against it, persecute that group, and eventually exterminate. Darwin never mentioned his biological theory becoming applicable to societal order, nor as a scientist would he have explored another discipline outside his study.

"Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?" -- Adolf Hitler

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/hitler.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The2ndWheel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 07:05 AM
Response to Original message
34. Hitler didn't believe in evolution
He believed in ultimate control and manipulation by means of the state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ck4829 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
35. Nothing about the eugenics programs in the US which influenced Hitler?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 08:37 AM
Response to Original message
36. And who gets the blame for
coultergiest? The fucking Devil?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cool user name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 04:38 PM
Response to Original message
41. Please tell me this is a Parody
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tjwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
42. Hitler belived in eugenics, which is NOT evolution...
...any more that Social Darwinism is actually based on any of Darwins principles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 31st 2014, 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC