The Greatest Crisis Facing America: The Democrat Party Represents The WRONG 90 Percent

I took my bike to the dealership to have some repair work done and – having forgotten to do so beforehand – more or less randomly grabbed a book of a shelf that struck me as the thing to read in the haste of the moment as I ran out the door.

It was The Battle For Truth” by David A. Noebel.  I’d read through it before years ago, but it was a great refresher.

Noebel accurately describes in his introduction secular humanism as both a worldview and in fact a religion that is at hostile warfare with Judeo-Christianity for the soul of America.  And then he states the following:

The influence of this Humanistic way of thinking is prevalent in every sector of our lives.  Consider, for example, the way that atheistic evolutionary thinking has become the accepted and undisputed truth within the scientific establishment and for those who are teaching the next generation of young people.  Although the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in the existence of God, 90% of the leadership of the National Academy of Sciences consider themselves to be atheists.  Their atheistic dogma reaches into every public school of America via naturalistic evolutionary propaganda.  Evolution is not treated as a theory, but as an unquestioned fact.  “In China,” writes a Chinese paleontologist, “we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”  — Page ix, The Battle For Truth by David A. Noebel

Ben Stein documented that last point is profoundly and terrifyingly true in his documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.  Stein documents, among many other things, a number of tenured professors who were destroyed for nothing other than committing the heresy of believing in Intelligent Design rather than in random and mindless evolution.  He specifically compares the Stalinists in their ideological purges to what we see going on today in American colleges and universities as the most intolerant people on earth impose their belief system.  Here are a couple of links to quotes from that movie – 1, 2, – to give you a flavor.  I also found this insight into the film insightful.

I submit to you that fact and that fact alone is why China is doing so much better than America and why China is rising while America is falling.

China and Russia – as evil as both nations are – don’t deserve to die.  America does.  Because as evil as both these nations are, America under the control of the Democrat Party is even MORE evil.  And as a result of Democrat Party godless fascism, we have so pissed on the vision of this nation as “one nation under God” that it is beyond laughable.

THAT is why Russia and China are both in the Bible in the last days and America is nowhere to be seen.

I didn’t used to understand this.  I mean, is America more wicked than China?  Than Russia?  After all the awful things these nations have done and the Bible says will YET do?

Now I’ve come to realize something: when you were once a nation that powerfully called upon the LORD – as America did – and then you turn your back on Him and spit in His eye and say ‘We don’t need you any more,’ you subject yourself to a FAR harsher penalty of judgment than those nations that never turned to the Lord in the first place.

As a powerful example, think back to World War II during the most critical moment of the war as the D-Day Invasion of Normandy began.  The war would have turned in an awful direction had America failed to land in Europe that June 7, 1941.

And the president of the United States turned to the Lord and prayed.

Joseph Stalin didn’t pray to the Lord for divine assistance.  Neither did Mao Tse Tung.

FDR did.  And the American people by the millions sank to their knees in factories, in offices, in shopping centers, in homes, and prayed that God would spare this nation and grant us success.

And now when America shakes its new socialist-collectivist fist at God and snarls, “We don’t need you any more!”  God says, “That’s fine.  I don’t need YOU any more, either.  And One of Us is great enough and powerful enough to live while the other one dies.

God is not mocked.  And this nation that once worshiped God but now worships abortion and sodomy and socialism is a mockery unto God.  And we will fall because of it.

The crisis facing America is that the Democrat Party is the party of the 90% of the “intelligentsia” who are atheist and who have – having gotten their foot in the door – acted like fascist thugs to purge everyone who disagrees with them from journalism, from academia, and from government bureaucracy.

The Democrat Party is the Party of the Middle Finger Salute to God.

And we like sheep have been led astray.  And sheep poorly led are invariably sheep led to slaughter.

And America is going to go pay for it.  We’re going to go down hard – in a way that even nations such as China do not deserve to go – as God “gives this nation over” to the depravity imposed by the Democrat Party that worships the murder of more babies than all the deaths of all the people on all sides killed during the entirety of World War II in addition to their worship of homosexuality.

 

How Secular Humanists And Progressive Liberals Have Always Exempted Themselves From The Darwinian Evolution They Inflict On Everybody Else

I was watching a Military History program called “No Surrender: German and Japanese Kamikazes” about the birth of the Japanese kamikaze pilots of WW2 yesterday.

If you have knowledge of the dilemma of the German generals – with a fanatic Führer screaming orders and a fanatic youth who would have lined the generals up and shot them for treason or cowardice if they’d failed to continue to wage the war – you shouldn’t be surprised to learn that the exact same dilemma slapped the Japanese admirals in the face.  We find that neither top military leadership could stop the war or even de-escalate the atrocities.

First let’s talk briefly about Nazi Germany.  Germany was the official seat of the Protestant Revolution with Martin Luther nailing his 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenberg.  But well before the end of the 19th century, Germany had strayed far from God, indeed.  It had in fact become the most atheistic nation in all of Europe and in all of Christendom and in all of Western Civilization.

The perversion and degradation of German culture began in the minds of the German intellectuals.  Even in the very last days of Nazi Germany, with thousands of bombers devastating helpless German cities every single day, Germany led the world in science and philosophy.  What we found – or at least what we should have found – is that science and academia and vicious, murderous barbarism could easily come together to the worst horror imaginable.  We also should have found that ideas have consequences.

It turns out that Japanese admirals were in a very similar bind coming from the younger Japanese officers.  When the admirals first watched the first kamikaze pilots ignore their orders and fly their planes into American navy ships, they were utterly horrified.  Imperial Japan was not at least not initially a nation in which the old ordered the young to their deaths from behind the safety of the front lines; it was a war in which a fanatic youth with the best modern Darwinian educations breathed in the toxic ideas they had been fed throughout their entire lives and took those ideas to their natural conclusion.

It was the young pilots who had been the best students in science and technology who alone had the sheer fanaticism to transform themselves into human bombs.  Darwinism didn’t stop them from barbarism; it informed their barbarism and made them barbarous.  More than 4,000 of the most “scientific” and technically literate minds in Japan died committing suicide in order to try to kill their enemies.  These young fanatic officers ignored their older superiors and forced the admiralty to embrace total war to the death.

Because ideas have consequences.  And these young minds that had been so thoroughly poisoned by evolution and Darwinism rose up and lived out the implications of what they had been indoctrinated in.

Let’s put it this way, if you’re a secular humanist or a Darwinist, please explain to me how Darwinism does not entail Social Darwinism.  I mean, if Darwinian evolution is in fact true, if there is no God, no heaven or hell, no judgment, if we are random byproducts of a purposeless, meaningless, valueless universe that will ultimate swallow us up again the same random way it spat us out, then just why should we love and sacrifice for one another when it is far easier and far more profitable to crush and kill them instead?  All Social Darwinism really is is consistently living out the consequences of scientific Darwinism.  There is no Creator to whom we will be held to account on Judgment Day; there is no Imago Dei; we are nothing more than animals; and the animal world is a world in which the strong dominate and the weak die out.

Darwinian morality is as vicious as it is violent.

Let’s start with the fact that evolutionists claim that their system of Darwinism is simply the way the world works.  Assume that’s true for a moment.  And then look at the world around you.  Because like it or not, Darwinism entails social Darwinism.  What is true for nature must be true for the individual and society.  If nature progresses by competition for survival, and the victory of the strong over the weak, then all progress must come the same way.  If the law of the bloody claw is not entailed evolution, just how is it not entailed? How does the 4 billion year history of earth as envisioned by Darwinians not demonstrate that might makes right and it is far better to kill your enemy than it is to turn the other cheek to it? If life is an unceasing struggle for existence, and its outcome is the survival of the fittest, as Darwin claimed, then that is how we ought to function as individuals and as a society.

Modern Darwinians want to use their system to violently club God to death, then drop that club and say, “Now that Darwinism has killed God and religion, let’s not live as if our system that says life is a struggle for existence in which only the fittest survive and the weak are a threat to the rest of the herd is actually true.”  Like so many other elements of Darwinian thought, there is a massive self-contradiction.

Richard Dawkins has laid war and death on the back of religion, but he refuses to accept the far greater holocaust of death on the back of his atheism.  When we rightly point out that atheistic communism was responsible for the murder of more than 110 million people during peacetime alone, Dawkins claims that communism and atheism have nothing to do with each other.  But as I showed last week, that simply is false: atheism was at the very core of Marxism.  If you look up “state atheism,” you find that it is virtually identical with communism.  And it is no coincidence that not only did Karl Marx identify with Charles Darwin as strongly supporting his theory of class struggle and write that Darwinism was “the basis in natural history for our views,” but Nazism was also little more than applied Darwinism – with the rationale of both creating a master race and exterminating the Jews being profoundly Darwinian.  Hitler even made his own people the victims of his Darwinism, stating, “If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.”  That is profoundly Darwinian.  Now intellectual frauds like Richard Dawkins are trying to go back and rewrite history to expunge the incredibly tragic results of Darwinism being applied to the actual world and society.

And the horror that results in society is equally true of the individual who lives by Darwinism.

Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around?  Because “rape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.”  Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.”  Now go ye and do likewise.  Unless something inside of you screams “NO!  I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”

As was once stated in Time Australia Magazine:

Japan, war, and evolution
Source: TIME Australia, August 14, 1995 (p. 83). First published in CREATION Magazine Volume 18 number 2. Pages 7 to 9. December 1995 – February 1996.

This century has seen countless millions killed –more than in all known wars of human history put together – in the name of ideologies that owe their inspiration and justification directly to evolution.

The Nazis used this ‘science falsely so-called’ to justify treating other races as sub-human. Engaging in war, even genocide, could hardly be wrong, so they thought, since it made their version of the ‘fittest’ more likely to survive.

Communism’s dialectic materialism required belief in evolution for intellectual respectability. Stalin’s butchery is directly linked to his renunciation of God (and thus all notions of sin and judgment) after reading Darwin’s book. Mao Zedong, responsible for the deaths of tens of millions, listed Darwin and Huxley as his two favourite authors.

Few have realized, however, the degree to which Japanese thinking leading up to and during World War II was also heavily influenced by Darwin.

Japanese thought blended the theistic with the evolutionary. They were a chosen people because the Emperor was a descendant of the sun goddess; they were a master race because they were more highly evolved. Japanese biologists ‘produced studies decrying the apish physical features of other races (hairiness, long arms) and noting the highly evolved characteristics of the Japanese’ (which included milder body odour).

The horrors of Changi, the Burma railroad, and the various death marches of World War II showed a people renowned for cultural gentility treating their wartime captives as totally subhuman. Once you have made any group of people less than human in your thinking, backed up by the authority of ‘science’, it becomes a powerful justification for plain old sin.

If instead of Darwinism, the scientific world had been disseminating the truth that we are all closely related, being the descendants of Adam and Eve through Noah, what a difference we could have seen in the history of the last hundred years!

So yeah, evolution and Darwinism.  And Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia and Maoist China. Like peas in a pod.

I would submit that it’s not merely that through Adam and Eve “we are all closely related,” but that we have a Creator to whom we are accountable for how we treat one another that ultimately matters.  Because if someone is about to rob and murder you, do you really think they would stop if you just told them that we all randomly mutated from some common ape ancestor?

I saw something in the Los Angeles Times editorials.  Jon Wiener wrote on January 18:

Your editorial calling on Egyptian President Mohamaed Morsi to apologize for describing Zionists as ‘descendents of apes and pigs’ is only half right.  We are all descendents of apes, more or less.

Morsi is congratulated for embracing the theory of evolution at a time when so many of our own Christian leaders reject it.  No apology is necessary there. It’s the pigs that are the problem.

The following day, in the paper’s “Mailbag” section, writers explained away the insulting comparison to the pigs, too.  No harm calling Jews descendents of apes and pigs, no foul.

Here’s the thing: Wiener and those who piled on after him completely missed the point of Morsi’s claim and proceeded to make the same error themselves.  Morsi was most decidedly NOT saying that Arabs are likewise the descendents of apes and pigs; he was clearly saying that Jews ARE such descendents but that he and those who think like him are not.  And Jon Wiener, good liberal secular humanist that he is, likewise thinks that while all human beings are the random by-products of the union of mindless and soulless apes, he and his fellow liberal secular humanists are not.

It’s the same mistake, of course, that the Nazis and the Japanese committed: they believed in Darwinism for everybody else, but somehow exempted themselves from the animal state that they so so clearly in their millions of victims.

Gleason Archer exposed the moral and logical idiocy of secular humanism with the following:

“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self-defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

On the basis of his won presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self-contradictory and self-defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.”

You see, these communists, these fascists, these secular humanists, these progressive liberals, they claim that we’re all just meat puppet herd animals.  But somehow they exempt themselves and believe that they – who are just as much mindless random-chance by-products of evolution as everyone around them, can and somehow should still make all of the decisions for the rest of us.

I just wish that the evolutionists and Darwinians who argue that we are the random-chance product of mindless apes would confine their hateful ideology to themselves and leave the rest of us out of it.  But they actually do far worse; they make it ALL about the rest of us and leave themselves out of it.  That way we have the master race bureaucrats to make all our rules for us.

The doctrine of evolution intrinsically dehumanizes.  There is no God who lovingly created man in His own image, there is no God-given moral nature.  There is no meaning, no purpose and no value.  There is only nature and bloody violence and then more and more and more violence.  And ultimately there is only extinction in the cold depths of space as the mindless process that randomly spawned human beings just as mindlessly swallows it all back up again.

It’s interesting that in Revelation 15, when angels preach to the human race during the Tribulation, they say, “Fear God and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come, and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water” (Rev 15:7).  Just as World War Two was the product of mindless evolutionary dogma, so also will Armageddon be the result of the same dogma.

And that’s why the beast is coming.

The Three Fingers Pointing Back At Atheists When Atheists Point A Finger At Christians About Evil And Judgment

You’ve probably heard that expression, “When you point a finger at me, three fingers are pointing back at you.”  Let’s work with that today.

I recently wrote an article with the deliberately provocative title, “Atheist Country Japan Smashed By Tsunami.”

It generated quite a few cross postings to atheist blogs and forums.

One recent example attacked Christians as being “happy” that Japan was stricken by disaster, and, in linking to my blog, said:

Of course, maybe it’s because of all teh gay [sic] in Japan, or because the Japanese are all atheists. Or maybe it’s because they worship demons.

…

What a nasty, horrible God is the one in which they believe. What nasty, horrible sentiments they have expressed in the wake of so much suffering by their fellow human beings. What a nasty, cynical thing they do to promote their own religion by using this tragedy and other recent catastrophic events to “win converts” for Jesus.

Naming them charlatans and hypocrites does not do justice to the utter lack of compassion that resides in their hearts.

And the blogger cites my blog as an example of a fundamentalist who argues that God struck Japan “because the Japanese are all atheists.”

Well, first thing, did I actually even say that?  I quote myself from that article:

But is Japan’s unbelief the reason why Japan just got hit with an awful tsunami?

My answer is, “How on earth should I know?”

I cite passages of Scripture that clearly indicate that a disaster does not necessarily mean that God is judging someone, such as Luke 13:1-5.  I could have just as easily also cited passages such as John 9:1-3 about Jesus’ distinction between suffering and sin.  I could have cited 2 Peter 3:9, describing God’s patience with sinners rather than His haste to judge.  These passages aren’t at all out of tune with what I was saying.  And I actually DO single out by name for criticism men like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell who have immediately pronounced the wrath of God following some disaster.

I begin my article saying, “That headline is a deliberate provoker.  But please let me explain why I used that headline before you erupt one way or another.”  Then I proceed to state two undisputed facts: that Japan is atheist, and that Japan got hit by a disaster.  I urge someone to actually read the article and reflect on the possibilities.  But Boomantribune is an example of most of the atheists who cross-posted or commented to my article by NOT being someone who wanted to read or reflect; he or she is someone who refused to look beneath atheist ideology and immediately began demonizing the other side to “win converts” for his religion of atheism.  [And let’s get this straight: atheism IS a religion.  “Religion” does not need to depend upon belief in God, or Buddhism would not qualify as a religion.  The courts have ruled that atheism is a religion, and it is a simple fact that atheism has every component that any religious system has].

You can’t have a valid argument with someone like Boomantribune, I have learned.  They are either too ignorant, or too dishonest, or both to accurately represent the other side’s position or arguments.  They create straw men and then demolish claims that Christians like me aren’t even making.

Boomantribune viciously attacks me as harboring the “nasty, horrible sentiments they have expressed in the wake of so much suffering by their fellow human beings.”  But I end my article on Japan by saying:

You need that gift of divine grace.  I need that gift of divine grace.  And the people of Japan desperately need it today.

I pray for those who are in Japan.  I pray for their deliverance from both the tsunami and from their unbelief.  And I will join with many other Christians who will send relief to the Japanese people, with prayers that they will look not at me, but at the Jesus who changed my heart and my life, and inspired me to give to others.

It is also a simple fact that religious people are FAR more giving than atheists:

In the US, anyway, they don’t. Here’s just one study, done in 2003: The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions…Note that neither political ideology nor income is responsible for much of the charitable differences between secular and religious people. For example, religious liberals are 19 points more likely than secular liberals to give to charity, while religious conservatives are 28 points more likely than secular conservatives to do so…The average annual giving among the religious is $2,210, whereas it is $642 among the secular. Similarly, religious people volunteer an average of 12 times per year, while secular people volunteer an average of 5.8 times.

And this is “secular” people who aren’t particularly religious.  A lot of people rarely ever go to church, but still believe in God (basically 90% of Americans belive in God).  Since the evidence is rather straightforward that the more religious one is, the more giving one is, it is justified to conclude that atheists who are less religious than the merely “secular” are even LESS giving.

And, guess what?  My church has already taken its first of several offerings for Japan, and I have already given – and plan to give again.

I would also point out a couple of historical facts:

Christians actually began the first hospitals.

More hospitals have been founded by Christians than by followers of every other religion – including atheism – combined.

That said:

Atheist doctors are more than twice as likely to pull the plug on someone than a doctor who believes in God.

So just who is being “horrible” here?

Here’s another example of an atheist attack on me that backfired, followed by the dishonest atheist “cutting and running” from his own attack:

For what it’s worth, I have never withdrawn a single post:

Also, unlike too many blogs – particularly leftwing blogs, in my experience – I don’t delete anything. When the Daily Kos hatefully attacked Sarah Palin and her daughter Bristol and claimed that Bristol Palin had been impregnated by her own father with a baby, and that Sarah Palin faked being pregnant – only to have that hateful and vile lie blown away by Bristol giving birth to a child of her own – they scrubbed it like nothing had happened.

I’m not that despicable. Every single article I have ever written remains on my blog. And with all due respect, I think that gives me more credibility, not less: I don’t hit and run and then scrub the evidence of my lies.

If I post something that turns out to be wrong, I don’t destroy the evidence; I stand up and take responsibility for my words.  I apologize and correct the record.  As I did in the case above.

That, by the way, is the first finger, the finger of moral dishonesty pointing back at these atheists. 

That’s not the way the other side plays.  History is replete with atheist regimes (e.g. ANY of the officially state atheist communist regimes) destroying the record and any debate; history is replete with atheist-warped “science” making one claim after another that turned out to be entirely false.  As examples, consider Java Man, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Peking Man and the various other hoaxes that the “scientific community rushed to embrace in their rush to falsify theism.  In some cases “scientists” created an entire community – or even an entire race of people – around totally bogus evidence in “It takes a village” style.  There was the bogus notion of “uniformitarianism” by which the “scientific community” ridiculed creationists for decades until it was proven wrong by Eugene Shoemaker who documented that the theory of “catastrophism” that they had advanced for millennia had been correct all along.  And then all of a sudden the same evolutionary theory that had depended upon uniformitarianism suddenly morphed into a theory that depended upon catastrophism. It morphed so that it was equally true with both polar opposites.

Then there’s this:

Ann Coulter pointed it out with the false claim that evolution was “falsifiable” versus any religious claim which was not. Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” And Ann Coulter brilliantly changed a couple of words to demonstrate what a load of crap that was: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by God, my God theory would absolutely break down.”

In any words, evolution is no more “scientifically falsifiable” than even the most ardent young earth creationist claim. Their standard is impossible to prove. I mean, you show me that God “could not possibly have” created the earth.

The whole way they sold evolution was a lie.

There is NEVER an admission of guilt or an acknowledgment of error by these people.  They simply suppress or destroy the evidence, or “morph” their argument, or anything but acknowledge that just maybe they should be open-minded and question their presuppositions.

There is the extremely rare admission:

For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. -Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

But those are extremely rare, indeed.  The rest of the atheist-assuming “scientific community” is all about saying, “Move on, folks.  Nothing to see here.  Why don’t you look at our new sleight-of-hand display over in this corner instead?”

Phillip Johnson, in a very good article, points out how the “bait-and-switch” works:

Supporting the paradigm may even require what in other contexts would be called deception. As Niles Eldredge candidly admitted, “We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing it does not.”[ 1] Eldredge explained that this pattern of misrepresentation occurred because of “the certainty so characteristic of evolutionary ranks since the late 1940s, the utter assurance not only that natural selection operates in nature, but that we know precisely how it works.” This certainty produced a degree of dogmatism that Eldredge says resulted in the relegation to the “lunatic fringe” of paleontologists who reported that “they saw something out of kilter between contemporary evolutionary theory, on the one hand, and patterns of change in the fossil record on the other.”[ 2] Under the circumstances, prudent paleontologists understandably swallowed their doubts and supported the ruling ideology. To abandon the paradigm would be to abandon the scientific community; to ignore the paradigm and just gather the facts would be to earn the demeaning label of “stamp collector.”

[…]

Naturalistic philosophy has worked out a strategy to prevent this problem from arising: it labels naturalism as science and theism as religion. The former is then classified as knowledge, and the latter as mere belief. The distinction is of critical importance, because only knowledge can be objectively valid for everyone; belief is valid only for the believer, and should never be passed off as knowledge. The student who thinks that 2 and 2 make 5, or that water is not made up of hydrogen and oxygen, or that the theory of evolution is not true, is not expressing a minority viewpoint. He or she is ignorant, and the job of education is to cure that ignorance and to replace it with knowledge. Students in the public schools are thus to be taught at an early age that “evolution is a fact,” and as time goes by they will gradually learn that evolution means naturalism.

In short, the proposition that God was in any way involved in our creation is effectively outlawed, and implicitly negated. This is because naturalistic evolution is by definition in the category of scientific knowledge. What contradicts knowledge is implicitly false, or imaginary. That is why it is possible for scientific naturalists in good faith to claim on the one hand that their science says nothing about God, and on the other to claim that they have said everything that can be said about God. In naturalistic philosophy both propositions are at bottom the same. All that needs to be said about God is that there is nothing to be said of God, because on that subject we can have no knowledge.

I stand behind a tradition that has stood like an anvil while being pounded by one generation of unbelievers after another.  That tradition remains constant because it is founded upon the unchanging Word of God.  My adversaries constantly change and morph their positions, all the while just as constantly claiming that their latest current iteration is correct.

That is the second finger of intellectual dishonesty which so thoroughly characterizes atheism and anything atheism seems to contaminate with its assumptions.

Lastly, there is the finger of ethical dishonesty that is the ocean that the “walking fish” of atheism swims in.  [Btw, when I see that fish riding a bicycle I’ll buy their “walking fish” concept].

Basically, for all the “moral outrage” of atheists who want to denounce Christians for their God’s “evil judgments,” atheism itself has absolutely no moral foundation to do so whatsoever.  And the bottom line is that they are people who attack the five-thousand year tradition of Scripture with their feet firmly planted in midair.

William Lane Craig provides a devastating existential ethical refutation of atheism in an article I posted entitled, “The Absurdity of Life without God.”

To put it simply, William Lane Craig demolishes any shred of a claim that atheism can offer any ultimate meaning, any ultimate value, or any ultimate purpose whatsoever.  And so atheism denounces Christianity and religion from the foundation of an entirely empty and profoundly worthless worldview.  Everyone should read this incredibly powerful article.  I guarantee you will learn something, whatever your perspective on religion.

The thing I would say is that atheists denounce God and Christians from some moral sort of moral posture.  Which comes from what, exactly?  Darwinism, or more precisely, social Darwinism?  The survival of the fittest?  A foundation that comes from the “secure” footing of a random, meaningless, purposeless, valueless and entirely accidental existence?

As atheists tee off on God and at Christians for being “nasty” and “horrible,” what is their foundation from which to judge?

First of all, what precisely would make one a “nasty” or “horrible” atheist? 

Joseph Stalin was an atheist:

“God’s not unjust, he doesn’t actually exist. We’ve been deceived. If God existed, he’d have made the world more just… I’ll lend you a book and you’ll see.”

Mao Tse Tung was an atheist:

“Our God is none other than the masses of the Chinese people. If they stand up and dig together with us, why can’t these two mountains be cleared away?”  [Mao Tse Tung, Little Red Book, “Self-Reliance and Arduous Struggle chapter 21”].

Hitler was an atheist:

Hitler described to them that “after difficult inner struggles I had freed myself of my remaining childhood religious conceptions. I feel as refreshed now as a foal on a meadow” (Ernst Helmreich, “The German Churches Under Hitler,” p. 285).

Joseph Goebbels, a top member of Hitler’s inner circle, noted in his personal diary, dated 8 April 1941 that “The Führer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity.”  Now, one may easily lie to others, but why lie to your own private diary?

Goebbels also notes in a diary entry in 1939 a conversation in which Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.”

Hitler also said, “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.” [Hitler’s Table Talk, Enigma Books; 3rd edition October 1, 2000, p. 343].

Albert Speer, another Nazi in Hitler’s intimate inner circle, stated that Hitler said, “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion… Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”

Konrad Heiden quoted Hitler as stating, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself.” [Heiden, Konrad A History of National Socialism, A.A. Knopf, 1935, p. 100].

Now, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao were terrible, despicable, evil people.  But what made them ” bad atheists,” precisely?

When Mao infamously expressed this attitude –

“The atom bomb is nothing to be afraid of,” Mao told Nehru, “China has many people. . . . The deaths of ten or twenty million people is nothing to be afraid of.” A witness said Nehru showed shock. Later, speaking in Moscow, Mao displayed yet more generosity: he boasted that he was willing to lose 300 million people, half of China’s population.” [Annie Dillard, “The Wreck of Time” in Harper’s from January 1998].

– or when Joseph Stalin was similarly quoted as having said:

“One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.”

– were these men who were responsible for some 100 million deaths of their own people during peacetime expressing anything that violated some principle of Darwinian evolution, or the morality that derives from the ethic of survival of the fittest?

Mao put his disregard for human life and the lives of his own people to terrible work:

LEE EDWARDS, CHAIRMAN, VICTIMS OF COMMUNISM MEMORIAL FOUNDATION: In 1959 to 1961 was the so-called “great leap forward” which was actually a gigantic leap backwards in which he tried to collectivize and communize agriculture.

And they came to him after the first year and they said, “Chairman, five million people have died of famine.” He said, “No matter, keep going.” In the second year, they came back and they said, “Ten million Chinese have died.” He said, “No matter, continue.” The third year, 20 million Chinese have died. And he said finally, “Well, perhaps this is not the best idea that I’ve ever had.”

CHANG: When he was told that, you know, his people were dying of starvation, Mao said, “Educate the peasants to eat less. Thus they can benefit – they can fertilize the land.”

Did that somehow disqualify him from being an atheist?  How?  Based on what foundation?

Let me simply point out that the most evil human beings in human history and the most murderous and oppressive political regimes in human history have the strange tendency to be atheist.  It would seem to me that these atheists should frankly do a lot less talking smack and a lot more shutting the hell up.  But two verses from Scripture illustrate why they don’t: 1) The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1) and 2) “A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind” (Proverbs 18:2).

Let’s talk about “evil” for a few moments.  I have already begun addressing the “third finger” that points back at atheists when they denounce Christians or God.  But the idea of “evil” makes that “finger” the middle one.

Christians talk about evil.  A lot of people do.  Even atheists routinely do.  But what is their foundation for evil?  What is “evil”?  Most give answers such as, “Murder or rape is evil.”  But those would at best only qualify as examples of evil – not a definition that would allow us to make moral judgments.  Christians have an actual answer.  They point out that “evil” is a perversion from the way things ought to be.  But what “oughtness” is there in a random, purposeless, meaningless and valueless universe that was spat out by nothing more than pure chance?

Let’s just say at this point that the atheists are right in what is in reality a straw man attack of God?  So what?  I ask “so what?” because even if what they were saying were somehow true, by what standard would either God or Christians be “nasty” or “horrible”?  What is the objective, transcendent standard that stands above me, that stands above every Christian on the planet, that stands above the entire human race across time and space and holds it accountable, such that if Christians or even God do X or say Y, or believe Z they are “nasty” or “horrible”?

It turns out that they don’t have one.  And in fact, their very worldview goes so far as to literally deny the very possibility of one.  At best – and I would argue at worst – we are trapped in a world in which might makes right, and the most powerful dictator gets to make the rules.  Because there is nothing above man that judges man and says, “This is the way, walk in it.”  There is only other men – and men disagree with one another’s standards – leaving us with pure moral relativism. 

And if moral relativism is true, then the atheists STILL lose.  It would be a tie, given that atheists have no more claim to being “good” than any other human being or group of human beings, no matter how despicable and murderous they might be.  But they would lose because there are a lot fewer atheists (137 million) than there are, say, Christians (2.3 billion).  And it only remains for Christians to disregard their superior moral and ethical system just long enough to rise up and annihilate all the smart-mouthed atheists, and then say afterward, “Boy, we sure feel guilty for having done THAT.  Let’s pray for forgiveness!”  And the only possible defense atheists would have would be to abandon their “survival of the fittest” mentality and embrace superior Christian morality and cry out, “Thou shalt not kill!”

Even if Christians don’t wipe out the atheists physically, most would readily agree that the Christian worldview is still far stronger than the atheist one.  Dinesh D’Souza makes a great argument to illustrate this on pages 15-16 of What’s So Great About Christianity that shows why religion is clearly the best team.  He says to imagine two communities – one filled with your bitter, cynical atheists who believe that morality just happened to evolve and could have evolved very differently; and one filled with Bible-believing Christians who embrace that life and their lives have a purpose in the plan of a righteous God who put His moral standards in our hearts. And he basically asks, “Which community is going to survive and thrive?”

As a Christian, I don’t have all the answers (although I can certainly answer the question immediately above).  I am a human being and my mind cannot contain the infinite plan of an infinitely complex and holy God.  But I have placed my trust in a God who made the world and who has a plan for His creation which He is bringing to fruition.  And that worldview doesn’t just give me explanatory powers that atheism by its very nature entirely lacks, but it gives me a strength that I never had before.  Even when evil and disaster and suffering befall me beyond my ability to comprehend, I can say with Job – the master of suffering:

“But as for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, and he will stand upon the earth at last.  And after my body has decayed, yet in my body I will see God!  I will see him for myself. Yes, I will see him with my own eyes. I am overwhelmed at the thought!”  Job 19:25-27 (NLT).

Lest We Forget: Liberal Progressive ‘Science’ Was At The Core Of The Holocaust

As we plunge toward “climate change” legislation and government health care, let us realize that so much is being done in the name of “science.”  And let us realize that the ideological perversion of science has been the source of the greatest evil in human history.  Particularly when liberal progressives have been involved.

Let us begin with one particularly unpopular group of socialist progressives, the Nazis, and see where the thread leads:

Exhibit displays Nazis’ ‘Deadly Medicine’
By Eryn Brown, Los Angeles Times
Story posted 2010.10.15 at 10:27 PM PDT

The image of the Nazi doctor is a vivid one — and “Deadly Medicine: Creating the Master Race” doesn’t give it short shrift.

At this traveling exhibit, now on view at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, visitors can see photos of creepy gadgets like the calipers used by Nazi physicians to quantify racial characteristics. They can watch video of doctors testing how long it takes mental patients to die after inhaling tailpipe exhaust. They can learn about Dr. Julius Hallervorden, a neuropathologist who dissected hundreds of brains harvested from “euthanized” children.

But “Deadly Medicine” also aims to show that doctors’ and scientists’ role in the Holocaust wasn’t limited to measuring noses or conducting gruesome experiments in concentration camps.

The exhibit argues that by advancing the theory of eugenics — and then providing cover for the Nazi regime when it used that theory to buttress its racist and genocidal policies — German scientists helped lay the foundation upon which the Holocaust was built.

“This is important in understanding the context of the Holocaust,” said exhibit curator Susan Bachrach of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. “Presenting these ideas under the rubric of science made them more palatable.”

“Deadly Medicine” traces the roots of Nazi science back to the early 20th century and the rise of eugenics, an outgrowth of Darwinian thought that argued it was best for society if healthy people — and, some believed, only healthy people — were encouraged to reproduce. Allowing the “unfit” to thrive and multiply, the thinking went, interfered with natural selection and “degenerated” the population.

Some of the eugenics research funded by Germany after World War I actually led to improvements in public health, including an emphasis on prenatal care. (One poster urges pregnant women not to drink or smoke.)

“There’s been a tendency to dismiss everything done under the Nazis as pseudoscience, to distance ourselves,” Bachrach said. “That’s dishonest. A lot of the scientists we feature in this exhibit were legitimate.”

But most of the exhibit’s artifacts illustrate the dark side of Nazi eugenics, in which scientists called for mass sterilization — and eventually “euthanasia” — for people with a variety of sometimes haphazardly defined physical and mental illnesses.

It wasn’t a terribly long leap, the exhibit suggests, from the (comparatively limited, though still horrifying) task of sterilizing or killing the ill to coordinating the mass murder of ethnic groups that the Nazis — and their scientists — deemed defective, including Jews. “The euthanasia program provided a model for the much larger project that was to come,” Bachrach said.

“Deadly Medicine” offers some surprises. Germany wasn’t the only country to dabble in eugenics — one photograph shows a crowd at a Pasadena exhibit that extolled the “social benefits of sterilization.”

Another display reports that “doctors joined the Nazi party earlier and in higher numbers than any other professional group,” some driven by the hope that forcing Jewish physicians out of German hospitals would create job opportunities.

The exhibit raises thought-provoking questions about how good science — and good scientists — turn bad, said Kristine Brancolini, dean of university libraries at Loyola Marymount.

“At what point does something become unethical?” she said.

For Bachrach, another question is how far scientists might be willing to go to study their ideas — and how to stop them when they go too far.

“As a society, we’ve gone a long way toward establishing safeguards that didn’t exist,” she said. “But this exhibit continues to underscore the importance of informed leadership.”

The exhibit will be on display at the university until Nov. 24.

eryn.brown@latimes.com

For the record, I was writing about this subject long before I ever heard about this exhibit.  Having said that, the “Deadly Medicine” exhibit strongly reinforces everything I said.

The reporter says, “‘Deadly Medicine’ offers some surprises. Germany wasn’t the only country to dabble in eugenics.”  And of course, it might be a surprise to Ms. Brown, but it certainly isn’t a surprise to – oh, I don’t know, Glenn Beck – or to anyone who has actually made an effort to actually learn history.

Where else did we see eugenics?  And where did this monstrously evil form of science begin?  From CBS:

The Fernald School, and others like it, was part of a popular American movement in the early 20th century called the Eugenics movement. The idea was to separate people considered to be genetically inferior from the rest of society, to prevent them from reproducing.

Eugenics is usually associated with Nazi Germany, but in fact, it started in America. Not only that, it continued here long after Hitler’s Germany was in ruins.

At the height of the movement – in the ‘20s and ‘30s – exhibits were set up at fairs to teach people about eugenics. It was good for America, and good for the human race. That was the message.

But author Michael D’Antonio says it wasn’t just a movement. It was government policy. “People were told, we can be rid of all disease, we can lower the crime rate, we can increase the wealth of our nation, if we only keep certain people from having babies,” says D’Antonio.

But surely it came from conservative Republicans, someone might say.  Something so evil could never come from Democrat progressives.

Wrong.

Margaret Sanger, hero of liberalism and feminism, and founder of Planned Parenthood, was an ardent eugenicist.  You can see it in her own words.

Here’s an interesting quote from one of the greatest patron saints of liberalism:

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

Don’t worry, Margaret.  Your secret is safe with the mainstream media.  They’ll never betray the secret that abortion is morally evil, that it is the murder of an innocent human being, and that liberal Democrats to this very day are trying to destroy the black population.

Three out of every five pregnancies of black women in America are exterminated through abortion.  And every three days, blacks kill more of their own through abortion than all the black people lynched between 1882 and 1968.

I also notice that Margaret Sanger also wanted to do this in the name of a “religious appeal.”  Let me say this: Don’t you DARE call yourself a Christian if you support “a woman’s right to choose” to kill her baby.  Because by obvious extension you also then support the Virgin Mary’s “right” to choose to kill Baby Jesus in her womb.  And so Jesus can’t save such a liberal progressive “Christian” from his or her sins, because the Jesus of liberal progressive “Christianity” is dead in an abortion mill.  And so hell awaits you for your part in the murder of nearly 50 million innocent unborn babies in America alone.

Planned Parenthood, founded on the scientific principles of Darwinian-based eugenics, has never changed.  They are still primarily located in minority (read that as “genetically inferior”) populated neighborhoods.  And they are still perfectly at home with the genocide of the black race through abortion.  In fact, not all that long ago, they were caught red-handed:

LOS ANGELES, February 28, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – UCLA’s pro-life student magazine, The Advocate, has revealed an undercover investigation in which representatives of Planned Parenthood enthusiastically accepted a financial donation targeting the abortion of an unborn black baby for racist motives.

And what does the “great” liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg have to say about that?

“Frankly I had thought that at that time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of” — 7/2/09 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

The article detailing the apology over American scientists deliberately infecting Guatemalan men with syphilis pointed out that our fascination with eugenics and the ugliest forms of “science” continued long after Hitler was defeated and Nazism destroyed.  And it did.

The Tuskegee experiment – in which black men with syphilis were deliberately left untreated so scientists could study the advance of the symptoms – thrived under Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration.  And we just recently discovered that another similar study thrived under the administration of fellow Democrat president Harry S. Truman:

WASHINGTON (AP) — American scientists deliberately infected prisoners and patients in a mental hospital in Guatemala with syphilis 60 years ago, a recently unearthed experiment that prompted U.S. officials to apologize Friday and declare outrage over “such reprehensible research.”

The U.S. government-funded experiment, which ran from 1946 to 1948, was discovered by a Wellesley College medical historian. It apparently was conducted to test if penicillin, then relatively new, could prevent infection with sexually transmitted diseases. The study came up with no useful information and was hidden for decades.

Liberal progressives haven’t changed their spots.  They arrogantly claimed that they represented the movement of “progress” and “science” when they were leading the way for Adolf Hitler and the most genuinely evil human depravity ever seen in human history.  And they’re saying the same things now.

Barack Obama’s “spiritual mentor” Jeremiah Wright believed and taught all this depraved garbage.  And it should come as absolutely no surprise that Barack Obama is so deeply steeped in the culture of abortion that he supports even abandoning babies who survived the horrific procedure and had been born alive to die.

And, yes, the same Hitler who embraced the Darwinian eugenics movement devised and championed by 20th century American progressive liberal Democrats also embraced the government health care and embraced the environmental movement championed today by 21st century American progressive liberal Democrats.

Same moral garbage.  Same Democrat Party.

Science in and of itself is morally neutral.  There is no conflict between good science and good Christianity.  In fact, science flowed from the universities that themselves emerged directly from the great Christian monasteries.  The man who formulated the scientific method was a publicly confessing Christian, as were the discoverers of every single major branch of modern science.

Science goes “bad” when it is hijacked by an ideological agenda.  And that is precisely what we are seeing over and over again today.  We’ve certainly seen it with “global warming” or “climate change” or whatever the hell you want to call it.  And we have certainly seen the same ideological poison of science and of scientific methodology by advocates of ObamaCare.

Science serves mankind when it is a method.  It becomes man’s greatest enemy when it becomes a tool.

Barack Obama tried to claim that he was somehow above distorting science to serve a political agenda not long after becoming president.  But he has done precisely that more than anyone who has preceded him.  For just two recent examples, Barack Obama distorted the scientific report by scientists who argued that there was no scientific basis to shut down drilling.  And then he again distorted the scientific reports from scientists who tried to assess the extent of the Gulf oil disaster (see here also).

Obama is no guardian of scientific legitimacy.  He is its leading perverter.

I have mentioned abortion several times in this article.  What does science really say about abortion?

To put it simply, science properly understood tells us that human embryos are human by virtue of their parents, and beings by virtue of the fact that they are living things (they grow, feed,respire,excrete,respond to stimuli, and reproduce): they are human beings.  Science further tells us that human embryos are NOT part of their mother’s bodies; rather, they are clearly unique genetic individuals, with their own unique human DNA.  Moreover, scientifically, every single living thing is rigorously classified by the science of taxonomy into the categories of: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.  And a human embryo – an unborn baby – is of the kingdom Animalia, of the phylum Chordata, of the class Mammalia, of the order Primates, of the family Hominidae, of the genus Homo, and of the species sapiens.  Same as you, same as me, and same as any human being who has spent a lifetime living outside of his or her mother’s womb.

Any attempt to claim that “science” legitimizes abortion is totally false and totally perverted science.  And yet science is falsified and perverted on a daily basis today.

Democrats have for years characterized themselves as the party of “science,” while demonizing Republicans as the party that stands in the way of science or progress.  But they long ago forfeited any legitimate credibility that they had to make such a claim.

Update, October 18:  It didn’t take long for Obama to prove me right again.

Obama said:

“Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we’re hard-wired not to always think clearly when we’re scared,” Obama told the assembled Democrats, who paid $15,200 a person to attend. “And the country is scared.”

This from the man who said as he justified the culture of abortion:

“It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology,”

Let me leave you with an alternate “scientific” examination of what is going on today: Americans are “hard wired” to survive, and they are growing increasingly fearful as they realize their president is destroying their and their children’s country.

That answer not only is equally “scientific,” but it has the virtue of NOT basically calling the American people a bunch of non-rational meat puppets.

Barack Obama was quite fine with the “scared” American people “not thinking clearly” when they voted for him two years ago.  And the reason it bothers him so much that his demagoguery is now backfiring on him has nothing whatsoever to do with “facts and science and argument.”

Unless you think Obama saying “They’re fighting back.  The empire is striking back” was somehow about “science,” when, given the Star Wars analogy, no one better qualifies as the evil emperor bent on ruling the universe than Barack Obama himself.

It’s bad enough that Barack Obama is a demonizing demagogue to the very core of his political, if not his moral, being.  But when he wraps his demonizing and demagoguery in the mantle of “science” as so many “progressives” have before him, you should step back and see how this movie has played out in the past.

Jeremiah Wright’s Stupid Views on Black and White Learning

I can pretty much stand by what I’ve said before: a Jeremiah Wright in context is nothing but an even more racist, more hateful, more anti-American Jeremiah Wright than a Jeremiah Wright out of context. Now – in living, glowing context – Jermemiah Wright is saying things that would make even a self-respecting fascist blush.

You have simply GOT to hear these words from Wright, spoken before a cheering crowd of 10,000 at the 53rd annual Fight for Freedom Fund Dinner sponsored by the NAACP on April 27.

In the past, we were taught to see others who are different as being deficient. We established arbitrary norms and then determined that anybody not like us was abnormal. But a change is coming because we no longer see others who are different as being deficient. We just see them as different. Over the past 50 years, thanks to the scholarship of dozens of expert in many different disciplines, we have come to see just how skewed, prejudiced and dangerous our miseducation has been.

Miseducation. Miseducation incidentally is not a Jeremiah Wright term. It’s a word coined by Dr. Carter G. Woodson over 80 years ago. Sounds like he talked a hate speech, doesn’t it? Now, analyze that. Two brilliant scholars and two beautiful sisters, both of whom hail from Detroit in the fields of education and linguistics, Dr. Janice Hale right here at Wayne State University, founder of the Institute for the study of the African-American child. and Dr. Geneva Smitherman formerly of Wayne State University now at Michigan State University in Lansing. Hail in education and Smitherman in linguistics. Both demonstrated 40 years ago that different does not mean deficient. Somebody is going to miss that.

Turn to your neighbor and say different does not mean deficient. It simply means different. In fact, Dr. Janice Hale was the first writer whom I read who used that phrase. Different does not mean deficient. Different is not synonymous with deficient. It was in Dr. Hale’s first book, “Black Children their Roots, Culture and Learning Style.” Is Dr. Hale here tonight? We owe her a debt of gratitude. Dr. Hale showed us that in comparing African-American children and European-American children in the field of education, we were comparing apples and rocks.

And in so doing, we kept coming up with meaningless labels like EMH, educable mentally handicapped, TMH, trainable mentally handicapped, ADD, attention deficit disorder.

And we were coming up with more meaningless solutions like reading, writing and Ritalin. Dr. Hale’s research led her to stop comparing African-American children with European-American children and she started comparing the pedagogical methodologies of African-American children to African children and European-American children to European children. And bingo, she discovered that the two different worlds have two different ways of learning. European and European-American children have a left brained cognitive object oriented learning style and the entire educational learning system in the United States of America. Back in the early ’70s, when Dr. Hale did her research was based on left brained cognitive object oriented learning style. Let me help you with fifty cent words.

Left brain is logical and analytical. Object oriented means the student learns from an object. From the solitude of the cradle with objects being hung over his or her head to help them determine colors and shape to the solitude in a carol in a PhD program stuffed off somewhere in a corner in absolute quietness to absorb from the object. From a block to a book, an object. That is one way of learning, but it is only one way of learning.

African and African-American children have a different way of learning.

They are right brained, subject oriented in their learning style. Right brain that means creative and intuitive. Subject oriented means they learn from a subject, not an object. They learn from a person. Some of you are old enough, I see your hair color, to remember when the NAACP won that tremendous desegregation case back in 1954 and when the schools were desegregated. They were never integrated. When they were desegregated in Philadelphia, several of the white teachers in my school freaked out. Why? Because black kids wouldn’t stay in their place. Over there behind the desk, black kids climbed up all on them.

Reverend Wright believes that white children and black children learn differently. White children are left-brain object oriented; and black children are right-brain subject oriented. White children are “logical and analytical.” Black children are “creative and intuitive.”

Imagine if a white man had said that. Imagine, furthermore, if the pastor of John McCain’s church had presented such a pet theory to a national audience. There would be a firestorm of unimaginable proportions. As it is, not so much as a peep from the elite media. They are too busy hoping that they can either whitewash Wright’s views as “an acceptable form of culturally-black expression” or at least distance Barack Obama from any damage if plan A fails.

Jeremiah Wright says, “Turn to your neighbor and say different does not mean deficient. It simply means different.” The problem is that different actually very often DOES mean deficient. Pol Pot was different from the Dalai Llama. Adolf Hitler was different from Winston Churchill. Ice cream is different from colon cancer. Saying “different is not deficient” over and over again don’t make it so.

Do you see the can of worms Jeremiah Wright’s views open? should we now re-segregate our schools, so that black right-brain children can learn “their kind’s” way? The answer is ‘absolutely yes,’ according to Barack Obama’s mentor. And decades of hard-earned integration go right down the drain. Different classrooms come first. Different water fountains and bathrooms, of course, presumably come later. Do you see how completely radical these views are?

And, if there truly is a biological difference between black and white intelligence, as Wright claims, how does that not mean that one might very well be superior to the other? The record of history comparing the success of white European society to that of black African society now comes into play as a rather powerful prima facia argument that “logical and analytical” biologically trumps “creative and intuitive.” Racists have been making the very point that Wright embraces for generations. And from that understanding of difference, they argue to the deficiency: Prior to and during the Civil War, southern white elites professed to be taking care of blacks through the institution of slavery. “Blacks can’t think like whites. They are like monkey-children, and we have to use our superior white intellect to take care of them,” they claimed. We got the phrase, “That’s mighty white of you” from that sort of attitude. Jeremiah Wright himself now opens the door to a return to some of the darkest racial times this country – and the world – has ever seen.

You simply must understand that the kinds of “differences” Wright points to have been – and are to this very day – viewed very much as “deficiencies” by many others who have dreams about solving such “deficiencies.” Jeremiah Wright, who argues that he is “descriptive,” not “divisive,” is indeed extremely divisive – and this particular brand of divissiveness has led humanity down dark and terrifying pathways.

Genuine Christianity – unlike Wright’s racist brand – does not fixate on such “differences,” but instead fixates on the image of God that all humanity shares in common. It’s not about what separates us, but what we share in common.

“I have a dream my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” Martin Luther King, Jr. said rather famously. But let us instead follow the thought of Jeremiah Wright and separate those children on his perceived difference in learning ability?

Let me take you down that dark path, from the idea to the consequences:

Out of Darwinism comes social darwinism. If the former theory is true, the latter is a necessary corolary. And Darwin’s subtitle for The Origin of Species was “the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.” Darwin described the development of life-forms in terms of an ongoing struggle for existence. The result of this struggle would be a natural selection of those species and races who were to triumph over those weaker ones who would perish.

In his Descent of Man, Darwin wrote:

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”

People have argued about Darwin’s racial views, but don’t think for a nanosecond that a vast array of intellectuals did not pick up on the clear implications of Darwinian thought – or that the consequences of that thought brought us horror on a scale that humanity had never dreamed of in its worst nightmares.

Francis Galton ackowledged that he was greatly influenced by Darwin’s Origin of Species. In his book Hereditary Genius he extended Darwin’s theory of natural selection into a concept of deliberate social intervention in his work, which he held to be the logical application of evolution to the human race. Galton was by no means satisfied to let evolution take its course freely. Having decided to improve the human race through selective breeding, brought about through social intervention, he developed a subject which he called “Eugenics”, the principle of which was that by encouraging better human stock to breed and discouraging the reproduction of less desirable stock, the whole race could be improved.

Darwin congratulated Galton on the publication of Hereditary Genius, telling his younger cousin in a letter that, “I do not think I ever in all my life read anything more interesting and original.”

In his essay, Eugenics as a Factor in Religion, Galton laid out arguments that would one day lead to Nazi death camps. He left no doubt about the link between evolution and eugenics: “The creed of eugenics is founded upon the idea of evolution; not on a passive form of it, but on one that can to some extent direct its own course….”
http://www.coralridge.org/darwin/legacy.asp?ID=crm&ec=I1301
http://www.galton.org/books/memories/chapter-XXI.html

A quote from Tom DeRosa’s “From Darwin’s Theory to Hitler’s Holocaust” fills in the picture:

When Hitler came to power in 1933, he installed a dictatorship with one agenda: enactment of his radical Nazi racial philosophy built on Darwinian evolution. He sought, in Darwin’s terms, to preserve the “favoured” race in the struggle for survival. Brute strength and [superior white Aryan] intelligence would be the driving force of the Nazi plan.

The first task was to eliminate the weak and those with impure blood that would corrupt the race. These included the disabled, ill, Jews, and Gypsies. Second, the Nazis sought to expand Germany’s borders in order to achieve more living space, or “Lebensraum,” to make room for the expansion of the “favoured” race. Third, the Nazis set about to eliminate communism because of its threat to the Aryan race and because, according to Hitler, communism was the work of Bolshevik Jews.

The plan quickly unfolded. An order to sterilize some 400,000 Germans was issued within five months of Hitler’s rise to power. The order, set to take effect on January 1, 1934, listed nine categories of the unfit to be sterilized: feebleminded, schizophrenia, manic depression, Huntington’s chorea, epilepsy, hereditary body deformities, deafness, hereditary blindness, and alcoholism. The Nuremberg Laws were passed in 1935 to prohibit marriage between Jews and Germans and to strip Jews of their German citizenship.

The Nazis established eugenic courts to ensure that the eugenic laws were enforced. To identify the unfit, German eugenicists compared the individual health files of millions of Germans with medical records from hospitals and the National Health Service. The American firm, IBM, aided the effort by automating a national card file system that cross-indexed the defective.

American eugenicists celebrated the German sterilization program. A leading U.S. eugenics publication, Eugenical News, published an admiring article on a German eugenics institute and extended “best wishes” to its director “for the success of his work in his new and favorable environment.” The New England Journal of Medicine editorialized in 1934 that “Germany is perhaps the most progressive nation in restricting fecundity among the unfit.”

Eugenics in America was not a fringe movement. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark 1927 ruling that authorized the sterilization of a “feeble minded” Virginia woman. In his majority opinion for the Court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

DeRosa points out that “Today when evolutionists are questioned as to how Darwinian evolution gave birth to Hitler’s Nazism, they immediately want to beg the question, answering that racism has nothing to do with science. They are correct! Racism has nothing to do with science, but it has everything to do with evolution—a fact that is unavoidable.”

It might be worth mentioning at this point that Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in order to put her philosophy of eugenics to life. And blacks were near the top of her list of “deficients.”

Eugenics is back in the news today. Recently, a UCLA pro-life student group conducted a “sting” that exposed the fact that the organization created by racist-eugenicist Margaret Sanger may well be as racist as ever. An overwhelming number of “Family Planning clinics” are located in predominantly black neighborhoods, helping black women terminate half their pregnancies.

Pro-abortionists call it “exercising a woman’s right to choose.” Francis Galton called it “discouraging the reproduction of less desirable stock.” Should I again mention Jeremiah Wright’s mantra, “Different does not mean deficient” here? I argue that such views are morally deficient.

Black pastors are coming out in force to condemn the genocide of black babies in Planned Parenthood clinics. Unfortunately, Jeremiah Wright is not among their number; he supports abortion. I don’t know how he feels about the fact that half of all black babies are killed before they can see the faces of the mothers who don’t want them.

Now, I have no doubt that Jeremiah Wright would immediately disassociate himself from Nazis, from eugenics, from the genocide of black babies, and maybe even from Darwinism.

The problem is that there is a world of unintended consequences. Liberals once added a luxury tax on items such as yachts to collect more revenue. They were very quickly forced to suspend the tax because wealthy people quit buying yachts resulting in the layoff of thousands of workers. In this case, Wright wants to pursue an agenda of black racial separatism, but I am arguing that the consequences for blacks will be anything other than good.

The problem is that, for all of his intelligence, Jeremiah Wright is a moral idiot who does not understand that Adolf Hitler, Margaret Sanger, and every other racist social Darwinist would listen to the comments I’ve quoted from Jeremiah Wright and completely agree with them.

The problem is that ideas have consequences, and Jeremiah Wright has a head crammed full of vile ideas.

The problem is that the more the American people hear these vile ideas, the more they will legitimately question whether a man who sat under such teaching for twenty years is fit to be president.