"This book will prove to be an invaluable source for anyone wondering how closely linked Social Darwinism and Nazi ideologies, especially as uttered by Hitler, really were." --German Studies Review

That has never been in doubt. I would say that more than half of the professing christains on this site have never even read the bible, and think that they are christain because they're - well, nice people.

Being "nice" isn't part of the criteria for being a christian. Doing good works makes one a good Muslim, doesn't make one a christian.

Again I ask - do you know what one has to do to be saved? (Which translates into one being a christain)

Having read this - I ask you again. What do you think a christain is?

Darwin and Hitler: Darwin disavowed selective breeding of humans

The film quotes an extended and seemingly damning passage from Darwin on the effects of bad breeding. ‘...No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” If anything seems like a “necessary” idea to German master race theory, it surely is this. But just a minute. Actually, the influence of breeding is not Darwin’s idea at all - he is merely pointing out what we have known for literally thousands of years since humans domesticated animals. And most importantly, Darwin himself emphatically disavows any such program for humans. The quote given in the movie completely excises a large section and a crucial qualifier in the middle of passage - “excepting in the case of man himself”. And it entirely leaves off Darwin’s conclusion: we cannot restrain our sympathy “without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature” and if “we neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for contingent benefit with an overwhelming present evil.” Darwin explicitly asserted that refusing to help, let alone destroying, the needy and the infirmed is both contrary to our nature and morally repugnant. The very opposite of Hitler and sadly, the opposite of the views ascribed to him by Expelled.

A subscriber of the Christian faith. This would include Born Agains.

I just discredited the movie "Expelled"

It has been my belief that a person can be nice in spite of being a Christian.



Nor is being a murderer nessassarily.

Hitler based his ideas not on Darwinism but on a "divine right" philosophy:

Thus, it [the folkish philosophy] by no means believes in an equality of races, but along with their difference it recognizes their higher or lesser value and feels itself obligated, through this knowledge, to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker in accordance with the eternal will that dominates this universe. (Hitler 1943, 383)


The first edition of Mein Kampf suggests that Hitler may once have believed in a young earth: "this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men" (p. 65; the second edition substitutes "millions" for "thousands," and chapter 11 refers to "hundreds of thousands of years" of life in another context.) Other passages further support his creationist leanings:

The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise. (Hitler 1943, 383)

and

What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, . . . so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. (Hitler 1943, 214)
Quotes from Hitler invoking Christianity as a basis for his actions could be multiplied ad nauseam. For example:

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord (Hitler 1943, 65).

"[T]he task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission (Hitler 1943, 398).

A campaign against the "godless movement" and an appeal for Catholic support were launched Wednesday by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces (Associated Press 1933).

The Nazi Party in general rejected Darwinism and supported Christianity. In 1935, Die Bücherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published a list of guidelines of works to reject, including:

Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel). (Die Bücherei 1935, 279)

On the other hand, an undated "Blacklist for Public Libraries and Commercial Lending Libraries" includes the following on a list of literature which "absolutely must be removed":

c) 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. (Blacklist n.d.)

Genocide and racism existed long before Darwin. Obviously, they did not need any contribution from Darwinism. In many instances, such as the Crusades and the Spanish conquest of Central America, religion was explicitly invoked to justify them.


Evolution does not promote social Darwinism or racism or eugenics.

As to "it is what it is" - we agree. Since I wasn't around when the framers were discussing what principles they would adhere to in terms of establishing the cornerstone of this "New Nation", I can only go by what history records of what those framers said of what and why they based their decisions on.

Obviously the difference between Robinson and Cromwell can be directly - or indirectly seen from the lay_of_the_land of the times in which they lived. It is obvious that the power of the church in government is in direct oposition to each other in terms of it's influence at the time each man lived. The same can be said for just examining the influence of religion in the country in the mid 1700's as compared to today.

I don't think that it is too difficult to see that were any of the founding fathers to walk into a seesion of congress - or to see the ACLU bring a petition before the Supreme court - that they would wonder what country they were in.

To think that the state of the country and the practices of the day are what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the constitution is a case of futility in attempting to prove that where we are is what they had hoped for.

Does anyone think that the founding fathers even considered that the issue of abortion was something they needed to adress? That it was a crime in their time to teach from the bible in the classroom?

I doubt it. It is what it has become. Only God knows whaere that will lead us.

Who's this "we" and what is the "evidence"?

And one last question. Why is it the case that my sources pepper their historical accounts of Hitler using direct quotes where he espouses his anti-Semitisms and biblical views. Yet when I look at any information provided of the opposite opinion, it is ALL based on the author’s conjecture?

Lets see, KerryO, Redy, Me, Inkraser, Dragoness, Busidobillyclub. I might have missed some. This entire thread is peppered with historical accounts. If you refuse to read them, there is nothing I can do but dont sit there and claim the evidence has not been provided.

But Redy - that is what every christain understands, the part they played in sending Jesus to the cross. To deny having taken part in the responsibility of that, is not to understand the essence of christianity in the first place.

So - for the most part - your claim of taking offense - is erronious to any true christain.

Ive answered this question twice. I also will say again that the evidence to support Hitler's Christianity is overwheming. The ball is in your court once again

A "subscriber" - what does that mean?

You think because someone supports a few christian views that makes them a christian?

If someone claims to accept Jesus Christ as their savior then yes, I would refer to them as a Christian. What right would I have to say they are a "fake Christian" at that point? How would you be able to ascertain the difference between a pretend Christian and a real one? That would mean that during 1930s Germany, the most Christianized country in the world in that time period and the most heavily Christian population could not tell that Adolph Hitler was not a Christian according to you.

It is not the pepper shaker of evidence to support your statements - it's the mountain of evidence that refutes what you say that is conspicuously missing from your "evidence". You merely make a statement - find a single quote to support it, and ignore where all of the evidence takes you. You establish "evidence" by pretext, then when context is established you cry "that's a biased source" - ignoring what the context even demonstrates.

Have you found that good lawyer yet?

Okay if I have ignored any of your "evidence" then point it out. I have provided source material from documents and papers written by the Founding Fathers. I have also utilized historical society documentation and my own texts. If you are unhappy, I will provide more data. I have also refuted several sources provided to me. What else do you want me to do?

You determine the difference of a fake christain from a true christain by their actions and their words. The bible is quite clear on what determines a person becoming a christain, and how to recognize the validity of the claim to be one.

A perfect example of someone who is not a christain in terms of this criteria is Hitler.

Since you are unable to discern who a christain is and how to determine the validity of their claim, I question your input into any discussion concerning christainity.

Your own claims disqualify you.

Your insistance that Hitler is a christain by using secular writing to support your view, and not the text that defines christianity itself is enough proof to disqualify from even presenting evidence in the first place. Your opinion is obviouslty one from emotion and not fact. You are as bias as you claim your deterents to be. Even more so because you refuse to examine the the issue from all sides - and you pick and chose facts that support your bias rather than just gathering all of the facts and seeing where they lead. It's unfortunate - because you are obviously intelligent enough to overcome this fallacy in your arguments.