abe smith

Newspapers exist to make money for their owners, by selling *you* the readers/subscribers!/purchasers! TO the ADVERTISERS. Television operates on the same principle. HENCE, newspapers publish the goodies which their readers perceive as yummy to the tummy and rubbing to the [mind's, you shd pardon the expression} private parts. Are those reams of sports scores and play-analyses supposed to be INFORMATION? Hence, letters to the editor tend almost entirely to support, or to "praise with faint damns" the positions of the papers's owners which reflect the positions of the ADVERISERS and readers. Papers will seldom if ever-at-all publish well-reasoned & persuasive letters, OR news articles for that matter, which would disprove or call-into-question the Herd's prejudices and stereotypes. Here in my city the only local paper published the local RC Bishop's Chrx sermon ["to be read at all Masses of Chrx Day" ] on its, the paper's OP-ED page. == a third of a page of free advertising for the Cheuch"s propaganda. I wait to see what the subsequent "Letters" publish in rebuttal....

ohwilleke

The four true atheists this letter writer mentions (Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot) were also communists who were far more familiar with Marx and Engles than Darwin and Wallace (and last time I checks, communist doctrine is not a core subject in U.S. schools). Hitler was a facist and was more of a nominal Christian preying on anti-semetic Christian attitudes to make his movement work, rather than an atheist.

Should we also condemn free enterprise and industrialization programs Hitler was a fan of, mechanized farming which was supported by Stalin and Lenin, and reforms like univeral access to vacinnation and education implemented by Mao in China, because these advances had unpopular proponents? Should we embrace the cruel monarchism that Stalin, Lenin and Pol Pot rose to power opposing, because they stood against it?

The same evolutionary theory this writer claims corrupted a handful of communist leaders, is also used every day by the doctors of the Mayo Clinic, a religiously established medical complex, to save lives every day. The agricultal agents whose efforts have made Kansas an agricultural powerhouse and the National Center for Disease Control at work in hot zones world wide to stop the next AIDS, Ebola or Spanish flu epidemic also rely on the theory of evolution. Evolution is even embraced by such "known atheists" as the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

If anyone was influenced by evolution in the social field, it was the social darwinists who used their evolution based theories to argue that unfettered capitalism was appropriate even if it came at the expense of poor in industrial accidents, unsafe tenments, sweatshop immigrant labor and long hours for uneducated women and children.

[edited to insert social darwinism point]

[ December 31, 2001: Message edited by: ohwilleke ]</p>

ohwilleke

Actual unlikely. The four communists, at least, were all fervently opposed to social darwinism, favoring instead killing those who succeeded in society, and elevating those who had failed.

Coragyps

Ohwillike - perhaps that's still Darwinian, just that it's "survival of those who dodge the most" instead of the traditional "fittest."

theyeti

The ironic things is that anti-evolutionists claim that Darwinism is responsible for both Communism and robber baron capitalism. Funny, isn't it, how a scientific theory could lead people to simultaneously adopt contradictory ideologies. It's pretty obvious at this point that the "guilt by association" rhetoric is simply contrived to make the audience think that there is something "evil" about Darwinism and it should therefore be opposed on those grounds, regardless of whether or not it's true (actually, for these people "truth" is not irrespective of wishful thinking -- whether or not they like something is considered to be a legitimate argument for these folks.) This makes it clear to me that they're floundering badly with their scientific arguments, otherwise they would not need to resort to such bad logical fallacy and hypocrisy.

theyeti

Beelzebub

To Theyeti- I agree with your post but wish to add something. I think that the attempts at "guilt by association" by christians are more then just thier failure to come up with scientific arguments against evolution. While using Hitler as a christian is indeed dicey (tho he made masterful use of christian anti-semetism), the many massacres and pograms that are well-documented and directly attributable to christians are embarressing enough. As many of these incidents were directly supported by the church, it can't be written off as not True Christians. In fact, the first person who used the "kill them all, the lord knows his own" excuse was a christian, fighting for the RC church against "heretics". And I'm not talking just christians, all fundies of all religions are dangerous people, who are difficult for theists to explain in light of thier religious claims of being a "civilizing influence".

Lance

This is all missing one point. We can argue forever about what Hitler "was". His words, his actions, and various accounts of them offer no completely consistant picture.

What also needs to be said is that none of this...the hatred of the Jews...could have been accomplished without the ground being laid by Martin Luther, the protestant hero of the reformation. Do read his 1543 work entitled "The Jews and Their Lies". It becomes hauntingly easy to see 1920s and 30s Nazi Germany in his words.

And while the straightdope crew is more or less defending catholics...they were incredibly silent on the german lutherans...who were completely in bed with Hitler.

So...was Hitler a christian? The only being who knows the answer is god, if he exists. But it was absolutely the "christ-killer" view of the jews that many european christians held that is absolutely responsible for laying the ground for the attrocity of the holocaust.