« First « Previous Comments 163 - 183 of 183 Search these comments
NC was the most aggressive in sterilizing, almost every request brought before it's Board was approved.
The Harrimans and Averells and Kellogs were key in financing eugenics societies. All three families can from theological and commerical backgrounds, with Kellogg founding a Missionary College. Harriman's father was a wealthy man and a Pastor.
Forced Sterilization is one of the least known aspects of American History. Despite Margaret Sanger, the vanguard was mostly WASP conservatives, with Protestant Preachers taking a particular interest.
By the way, sterilization as a must for welfare benefits (say after the 2nd out of wedlock birth, and having 2 kids already you can't afford is plenty of Reproductive Right excercised as it is), and forced sterilization of Schizophrenics and others may not be so bad. Somebody who wears aluminum foil on their head is not in a position to really decide to have kids, or raise them.
Conservatives of course, ignore the huge role of Wealthy 1%er families and Ethno-Religious makeup of those pushing Forced Sterilization and Eugenics generally, instead focusing only on Sanger because she pushed for birth control and abortion. The date of which states approved Eugenics matches up well with the highest Klan member states.
In fairness to North Carolina:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article9068186.html
Many of these sterilizations are at the request of parents, whose kids are truly mentally ill or handicapped and have been assaulted previously or will never have the judgement to avoid being abused, and by parents who want to stop having kids. Most of this is prior to the Pill.
Conservatives of course, ignore the huge role of Wealthy 1%er families
There are no Liberals or Progressive in the Wealthy 1%?
Conservatives didn't make Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood the Patron Saint of their party either.
I don't think unborn babies is a "problem" to be managed. I think life is a blessing. That is the fundamental difference between people like me and you.
The soon to be 9 billion people on the planet is a real problem. All those abandoned babies that no one wants to adopt is a real problem. The fathers who ejaculate and leave is a real problem. If you can't care for a child, it's best not to have a child.
By the way, an unborn baby in the first trimester is a fetus, not a baby.
There are no Liberals or Progressive in the Wealthy 1%?
While there were some Progressives who worried about Poverty and the Human Condition, most of the Eugenicists were worried about Master Racial Purity. The Nazis were no progressives, whatever HL Hunt and Jonah Goldberg may say. Charles Davenport ran Cold Spring Habor Laboratory and was avid about controlling "Inbreds" and the "Racially Inferior", like the Italians, who are given to outbursts of Irrational Behavior. He also considered FDR to be a typical physical handicapped person whose condition moved him towards "Dictatorial Powers".
The soon to be 9 billion people on the planet is a real problem. All those abandoned babies that no one wants to adopt is a real problem. The fathers who ejaculate and leave is a real problem. If you can't care for a child, it's best not to have a child.
By the way, an unborn baby in the first trimester is a fetus, not a baby.
Yep. It's ridiculous you need a license to drive a car or serve liquor or own a pet in many places, but any fuckhead can reproduce and force society to make up for his/her irresponsibility.
Naturally, religion depends on the indoctrination of children, so it favors mass reproduction to keep going.
Noticed that Dan can't dispute that it was religious groups (the people he thinks are insane and shouldn't be able to vote) were the main force behind the Abolition movement to end slavery.
Actually, I can. Christianity was used as a justification for slavery. Both the Old and New Testaments are very pro-slavery. The only times the Bible mentions slavery is to support it.
Now how many of the slavers were atheists? Zero. What percentage of atheists were against slavery? 100%. Sure, there were more religious nuts in the 19th century than today, but that doesn't make them more moral, just more plentiful.
If everyone were an atheist in 1860, slavery would have been abolished without a Civil War. The truly moral person does what is right, not out of delusional fear of a fictional dictator or greed for eternal life, but simply because it is the right thing to do. Christians seem incapable of understanding that.
"She even presented at a Ku Klux Klan rally in 1926 in Silver Lake, N.J. She recounted this event in her autobiography: “I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan … I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses … I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak … In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered†(Margaret Sanger, “An Autobiography,†Page 366). That she generated enthusiasm among some of America’s leading racists says something about the content and tone of her remarks."
She spoke about birth control. She spoke to many groups of all types. Why did you leave out so much of what she said? I have the book, here is the full quote.
"I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan at Silver Lake, New Jersey, one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing. My letter of instruction told me what train to take, to walk from the station two blocks straight ahead, then two to the left. I would see a sedan parked in front of a restaurant. If I wished I could have ten minutes for a cup of coffee or bite to eat, because no supper would be served later. I obeyed orders implicitly, walked the blocks, saw the car, found the restaurant, went in and ordered some cocoa, stayed my allotted ten minutes, then approached the car hesitatingly and spoke to the driver. I received no reply. She might have been totally deaf as far as I was 1 concerned. Mustering up my courage, I climbed in and settled back. Without a turn of the head, a smile, or a word to let me know I was right, she stepped on the self-starter. For fifteen minutes we wound around the streets. It must have been towards six in the afternoon. We took this lonely lane and that through the woods, and an hour later pulled up in a vacant space near a body of water beside a large, unpainted, barnish building. My driver got out, talked with several other women, then said to me severely, "Wait here. We will come for you." She disappeared. More cars buzzed up the dusty road into the parking place. Occasionally men dropped wives who walked hurriedly and silently within. This went on mystically until night closed down and I was alone in the dark. A few gleams came through chinks in the window curtains. Even though it was May, I grew chillier and chillier. After three hours I was summoned at last and entered a bright corridor filled with wraps. As someone came out of the hall I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses. I waited another twenty minutes. It was warmer and I did not mind so much. Eventually the lights were switched on, the audience seated itself, and I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak. Never before had I looked into a sea of faces like these. I was sure that if I uttered one word, such as abortion, outside the usual vocabulary of these women they would go off into hysteria. And so my address that night had to be in the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand. In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered. The conversation went on and on, and when we were finally through it was too late to return to New York. Under a curfew law everything in Silver Lake shut at nine o'clock. I could not even send a telegram to let my family know whether I had been thrown in the river or was being held incommunicado. It was nearly one before I reached Trenton, and I spent the night in a hotel."
Pretty amazing someone that was a racist advocating black genocide was invited to work with so many black groups. Not just speak, involved in the groups. I'm sure your other quote is just as badly out of context and misquoted.
Noticed that Dan can't dispute that it was religious groups (the people he thinks are insane and shouldn't be able to vote) were the main force behind the Abolition movement to end slavery.
Actually, I can. Christianity was used as a justification for slavery. Both the Old and New Testaments are very pro-slavery. The only times the Bible mentions slavery is to support it.
Socal2, how can you even imply Christianity is anti slavery? You will get beaten to a pulp in any debate.
The Bible clearly states the price of a slave, and how a slave should be treated. Nowhere does it say you should not have slaves. Even the 10 Commandments does not talk about freeing the slaves. Our secular constitution is far more moral than the Bible.
Pretty amazing someone that was a racist advocating black genocide was invited to work with so many black groups. Not just speak, involved in the groups. I'm sure your other quote is just as badly out of context and misquoted.
Out of Context is essential for Conservatives. Like "Hitler was against smoking, so he was a liberal."
Socal2, how can you even imply Christianity is anti slavery? You will get beaten to a pulp in any debate.
Because American Christians were the driving force behind the Abolitionist movement.
http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/abolitionist-movement
Some people around here seem to think that all Christians read the Bible as literal as Muslims or something. Newsflash, the Old and New Testament were written around events thousands of years ago when a whole lot of shit that we think is crazy was the norm in both religious and secular society.
Some people around here seem to think that all Christians read the Bible as literal as Muslims or something. Newsflash, the Old and New Testament were written around events thousands of years ago when a whole lot of shit that we think is crazy was the norm in both religious and secular society.
I really like what you said here. That is how societies the world over was at that time. You must admit, if the Bible reflects a bygone era, it must have limited use in today's world. It also requires a lot of reinterpretation, with some not willing to do so. And there is our problem. Too many Muslims don't reinterpret their Koran, which is why we have this problem on our hands.
Because American Christians were the driving force behind the Abolitionist movement.
That may have been so, but Christians can't take credit for ending slavery in America, if they instigated it in the first place.
I really like what you said here. That is how societies the world over was at that time. You must admit, if the Bible reflects a bygone era, it must have limited use in today's world.
Some things are timeless. Much of ancient Greek Classical philosophy from Aristotle and Plato holds up today. Same with the 10 Commandments and Jesus' Golden Rule.
That may have been so, but Christians can't take credit for ending slavery in America, if they instigated it in the first place.
That's just dumb. Christianity didn't create or instigate slavery. Us apes were practicing slavery long before Abraham, Moses or Jesus were around. Virtually every society on the planet regardless of their religious or lack of religious beliefs had slavery. The ancient Greeks had slaves. The Ancient Romans and Egyptians had slaves. The Mayans and Aztecs had slaves. The Native American Indians had slaves.
But it was largely Christian groups and Christian dominated countries that were FIRST to abolish slavery around the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline
That may have been so, but Christians can't take credit for ending slavery in America, if they instigated it in the first place.
Jesus Strategist, you made a good point.
But it was largely Christian groups and Christian dominated countries that were FIRST to abolish slavery around the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline
They introduced it all over their colonies. What killed it wasn't Christianity, but the fallout from the Enlightenment, Christianity's most hated development.
The most Christian states, the least Pluralistic states (ie One Denomination Christian States), and the ones that felt the Enlightenment was a Satanic-Jesuit-Jewish-Masonic Plot were the last to repeal it, see Spain and Portugal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuit_reduction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Brazil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_the_Society_of_Jesus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Latin_America
The history of the Counter-Enlightenment is very interesting. For all the bullshit claims that Fascism descends from Liberalism, it is much more aligned to the Counter-Enlightenment's love of Medievalism. The Counter-Enlightenment of Throne and Altar continues to spew bullshit to this day. Bgamall is totally in hoc to it's ideology.
That may have been so, but Christians can't take credit for ending slavery in America, if they instigated it in the first place.
That's just dumb. Christianity didn't create or instigate slavery. Us apes were practicing slavery long before Abraham, Moses or Jesus were around. Virtually every society on the planet regardless of their religious or lack of religious beliefs had slavery. The ancient Greeks had slaves. The Ancient Romans and Egyptians had slaves. The Mayans and Aztecs had slaves. The Native American Indians had slaves.
But it was largely Christian groups and Christian dominated countries that were FIRST to abolish slavery around the world.
No no no no no.
The God of the Bible says you should treat slaves kindly.
Strategist, the hard core atheist going to hell says, you shall have no slaves.
Who do you agree with Socal2? Who has the superior morals here? The Atheist, or the God?
I bet you will never be able to give an honest answer to this question.
Jesus Strategist, you made a good point.
I'm an atheist. What did you expect? :) :)
This is a great debate. You Boyz keep at it. I'm going to make a fried spam sandwich...
This is a great debate. You Boyz keep at it. I'm going to make a fried spam sandwich...
What, don't you have a couple of hours to go, or is that Socal?
This is a great debate. You Boyz keep at it. I'm going to make a fried spam sandwich...
Damn you. Now you got me hungry for a spam samich.
"I have not come to bring peace, but with a sword... to set father against son, brother against brother, etc. etc." - Jesus, Paraphrased.
Yet he is billed as either "Love" and/or the "Prince of Peace" in the same document.
Paraphrased.
The quotation you are looking for is:
In fairness, the context seems probably to imply a metaphorical sword, cleaving family relationships but not bodies.
If Jesus lived as an actual person (which Paul seems not to have believed), then Mark 3:21 describes him as what we would call schizophrenic: "And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself." Back in those days, religious people prone to believe in unseen spirits believed that the symptoms of schizophrenia resulted from demons, i.e. demonic possession. That made sense to them because schizophrenia manifests usually around age 20, when around 1% of the population start hearing voices and suffering delusions of grandeur and persecution. The character Legion ("for we are many") seems clearly to be suffering from schizophrenia. Schizophrenics can be otherwise brilliant (e.g. John Nash), somewhat like the autistic idiot savant character in Rain Man had extraordinary counting ability. Most people recognize that schizophrenics are clearly delusional, but the early Christians seem to have made a different choice: to present schizophrenic delusions as fact. That turned out to be much more lucrative than any other approach (until PhRMA came along and turned anti-psychotic drugs into a booming industry, including ads on TV for suckers who had been fooled into buying toxic SSRI placebos; when the SSRIs don't work, it means the patient must be psychotic and need aripiprazole). Monetizing mental illness goes back a long way, from faith healers casting out demons to the current Vatican priests selling exorcisms and Obamneycare mandating prepayment for toxic and disproved pills.
« First « Previous Comments 163 - 183 of 183 Search these comments
It's official. We Irish have defeated humanity. It's been a long and difficult battle, but we've finally wiped humanity off the face of the Earth. So anyone left on this planet must be a butt-pillaging ballsweat demon.
Same-sex marriage: Irish vote 'defeat for humanity' says Vatican official
After all, the only alternative to this dystopia vision is that religion is a stain on the world's taint that masquerades bigotry and ignorance as morality and holds back the moral and ethical advancement of society.