Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism

[SmartCat]

Wrong lolololol. Nothing you have said disproves documented history of stereotypes that were completely fabricated. I dont give a **** about your experience. They are irrelevant. Give it up smurt cat. You do not know what you are talking about.

Thats only part of the propaganda, when the nazis sent jews to ghettos and when jews were escaping pogroms in Russia, the exact same propaganda came out. Thats what Mrs. “the nazis killed the wrong people” wont tell you.

This is what leads to genocide. You are no different smurt cat.

Ironically the Nazi effort to exterminate the most superior race in existence led to the belief that there are no inferior races. The Nazis did serious harm to the cause of eugenics.

 

[bomberfox]

Ironically the Nazi effort to exterminate the most superior race in existence led to the belief that there are no inferior races. The Nazis did serious harm to the cause of eugenics.

The nazis took your movement and exterminated much more than jews. Ill just flat out tell you why i say the nazis took your movement to its most logical extreme. I wasnt talking about jews though they were the primary victims. I was talking about the handicapped. When the nazis’ American counterparts were sterilizing and in some cases euthanizing people, the nazis started with sterilization to cull the reproduction of bad genes. Guess what happened? Those genes did not stop appearing so they moved to flat out murder. Murder is the inevitable conclusion of eugenics. This is stupid and your nonsense is getting boring because you are reading flash cards now. Your genocidal movement deserves to die and every eugenecist back then should have been jailed for their genocidal ways. It happened in nazi germany but the American counterparts openly enabled it and sent aid to help them do it. Eugenics just went the way of homeopathy, its as simple as that.

Way to avoid the point when i am ramming it up your ass because you cannot address it when ive debunked your nonsense. The point was the propaganda used against jews in ghettos and immigrants fleeing russian pogroms, not whether you can repeat a dumbass meme.

 

[bomberfox]

The eugenics movement in America was primarily funded by robber barons. The American eugenics movement received extensive funding from various corporate foundations including the Carnegie Institution, Rockefeller Foundation, and the Harriman railroad fortune.[13] In 1906 J.H. Kellogg provided funding to help found the Race Betterment Foundation in Battle Creek, Michigan.[11] The Eugenics Record Office

Eugenics in the United States - Wikipedia

When ya cant get through peer review just get rich ghouls to fund you

 

[bomberfox]

Lastly the nazis used propaganda that would make Ayn Rand blush to attack the disabled and infirm as wasteful stock feeding from the money of the German Volk, not fit to live. I wasnt talking about their extermination of the jews even though they were victims of the eugenics movement, i was talking about the disabled and infirm which totally ruins your whole talking point.

 

[SmartCat]

The nazis took your movement and exterminated much more than jews. Ill just flat out tell you why i say the nazis took your movement to its most logical extreme. I wasnt talking about jews though they were the primary victims. I was talking about the handicapped. When the nazis’ American counterparts were sterilizing and in some cases euthanizing people, the nazis started with sterilization to cull the reproduction of bad genes. Guess what happened? Those genes did not stop appearing so they moved to flat out murder. Murder is the inevitable conclusion of eugenics. This is stupid and your nonsense is getting boring because you are reading flash cards now. Your genocidal movement deserves to die and every eugenecist back then should have been jailed for their genocidal ways. It happened in nazi germany but the American counterparts openly enabled it and sent aid to help them do it. Eugenics just went the way of homeopathy, its as simple as that.

Way to avoid the point when i am ramming it up your ass because you cannot address it when ive debunked your nonsense. The point was the propaganda used against jews in ghettos and immigrants fleeing russian pogroms, not whether you can repeat a dumbass meme.

You have not "debunked" what I have said any more than The Bell Curve has been debunked.

Right now in the United States and internationally people with IQ's below 100 are having more children than people with IQ's above 100. Human evolution is taking a U turn. At the same time computer technology and automation are eliminating jobs that most people have the intelligence to learn. If we keep doing things your way a growing percentage of the world's population will be congenitally incapable of supporting themselves.

I say after United States Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., "Three generations of imbeciles is enough."

 

[bomberfox]

You have not "debunked" what I have said any more than The Bell Curve has been debunked.

Right now in the United States and internationally people with IQ's below 100 are having more children than people with IQ's above 100. Human evolution is taking a U turn. At the same time computer technology and automation are eliminating jobs that most people have the intelligence to learn. If we keep doing things your way a growing percentage of the world's population will be congenitally incapable of supporting themselves.

I say after United States Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., "Three generations of imbeciles is enough."

There is no U turn in evolution. There is no destination. You are proving you dont actually know anything about evolution. This is basic stuff you should have learned and that i learned by debunking creationism.
Trees, not ladders
You are spreading pseudoscience and reverting to the lamarckian concept of inheritance. Give it up.
"Lamarckian Concept of Inheritance" by Lana Williams
Eugenics uses the lamarckian concept of inheritance, modern biologists have debunked it. So far you have not shown research by biologists or people who specialize in the necessary fields, only hasben sociologists, psychologists, etc. people with mental disabilities are able to perform much better now than before because we stopped executing them.

We have it much better in many ways today. Im not afraid of people you consider lesser beings nor do i particularly care.

 

[bomberfox]

So we have misunderstandings of not only intelligence, but also how basic evolution works as there is no such thing as a U turn in evolution. In order to get the huge changes that are supposedly needed to improve society smurt cat is requiring the timespan for actual subspecies to evolve. All human beings are homo sapient sapient. Improvements in general outcomes do not require such timespan, nor do they require intense genetic manipulation.

Next we have smurt cat misunderstanding of heritability
Studies of heritability ask questions such as how much genetic factors play a role in differences in height between people. This is not the same as asking how much genetic factors influence height in any one person.
so this whole discussion is pretty moot because the Murray crowd has no idea how we measure the heritability of g. Your insistence that intelligence studies shows Jeff Bezos was somehow genetically suited to become the CEO of amazon shows your extreme ignorance of intelligence studies which were not designed to answer that question.

Next we have affirmative action claims. How can black people supposedly be given a huge leg up when they are not the primary benefactors of affirmative action? White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents - Vox


Finally i showed now it actually wasnt just the mass genocides and atrocities, it was actually biology

 

[SmartCat]

There is no U turn in evolution. There is no destination. You are proving you dont actually know anything about evolution. This is basic stuff you should have learned and that i learned by debunking creationism.
Trees, not ladders
You are spreading pseudoscience and reverting to the lamarckian concept of inheritance. Give it up.
"Lamarckian Concept of Inheritance" by Lana Williams
Eugenics uses the lamarckian concept of inheritance, modern biologists have debunked it. So far you have not shown research by biologists or people who specialize in the necessary fields, only hasben sociologists, psychologists, etc. people with mental disabilities are able to perform much better now than before because we stopped executing them.

We have it much better in many ways today. Im not afraid of people you consider lesser beings nor do i particularly care.

Darwinian evolution asserts that what matters for evolution are not acquired characteristics, but inherited genetic characteristics. During nearly all of human evolution there was heavy population pressure toward higher intelligence. The population pressure got even stronger when humans migrated into cold climates, and with the development of agriculture and civilization. This is why the two civilized races have higher IQ averages than the other races. Unfortunately, things are moving backward now because an unmarried welfare mother can have five illegitimate children by five different men, while many brilliant women do not have any children at all. This is called "dysgenics."

 

[bomberfox]

Darwinian evolution asserts that what matters for evolution are not acquired characteristics, but inherited genetic characteristics. During nearly all of human evolution there was heavy population pressure toward higher intelligence. The population pressure got even stronger when humans migrated into cold climates, and with the development of agriculture and civilization. This is why the two civilized races have higher IQ averages than the other races. Unfortunately, things are moving backward now because an unmarried welfare mother can have five illegitimate children by five different men, while many brilliant women do not have any children at all. This is called "dysgenics."

Climates are part of the environment smurt cat. Eugenics claimed that characteristics earned during life could be passed down (that was the point of racial hygiene) and no thats not how welfare works. Try reading something other than right wing sources, the welfare queen thing from reagan was a myth then and it is now.
There is no dysgenics. Read the ****in link this time.

Baby Bust: Fertility is Declining the Most Among Minority Women | Institute for Family Studies

Kinda bursts your bubble smurt cat. Birth rates have been declining for years.

 

[bomberfox]

Darwinian evolution asserts that what matters for evolution are not acquired characteristics, but inherited genetic characteristics. During nearly all of human evolution there was heavy population pressure toward higher intelligence. The population pressure got even stronger when humans migrated into cold climates, and with the development of agriculture and civilization. This is why the two civilized races have higher IQ averages than the other races. Unfortunately, things are moving backward now because an unmarried welfare mother can have five illegitimate children by five different men, while many brilliant women do not have any children at all. This is called "dysgenics."

im talking about the claims of eugenics. Evolution actually deals with the change in allele frequencies over successive generations in a population over time. Genetic changes tend to be plastic to the environmental selection pressures. The theory doesnt deal with higher or lower species, it deals with change.

Your problem is you keep switching between heritability and inheritable.

 

[SmartCat]

Climates are part of the environment smurt cat. Eugenics claimed that characteristics earned during life could be passed down (that was the point of racial hygiene) and no thats not how welfare works. Try reading something other than right wing sources, the welfare queen thing from reagan was a myth then and it is now.
There is no dysgenics. Read the ****in link this time.

Baby Bust: Fertility is Declining the Most Among Minority Women | Institute for Family Studies

Kinda bursts your bubble smurt cat. Birth rates have been declining for years.

Eugenics is based on Darwinian evolution which asserts that genes matter, not acquired characteristics.

Cold weather selects humans for intelligence because people must be able to store food for the winter, and create clothes and habitations that will keep them warm during the winter. Civilization selects humans for intelligence because intelligent men usually become more prosperous than unintelligent men. Until fairly recently they had more children who lived to adulthood.

 

[bomberfox]

Eugenics is based on Darwinian evolution which asserts that genes matter, not acquired characteristics.

Cold weather selects humans for intelligence because people must be able to store food for the winter, and create clothes and habitations that will keep them warm during the winter. Civilization selects humans for intelligence because intelligent men usually become more prosperous than unintelligent men. Until fairly recently they had more children who lived to adulthood.

https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1981&context=lnq

This explains the problem in great detail. Admittedly i got part of the problem with eugenics wrong but there is a reason we no longer do eugenics besides the nazis. Civilization is not a natural selection pressure, it is a social construct. You are pretty wrong on that one.
Also you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about lolz.

in the United States
The movement in the United States was nourished by the rediscovery of Gregor Mendel's laws of inheritance in the early 1900's and the mistaken belief that all or at least most human characteristics could be genetically classified as passing down from parent to Offspring.16-19 I t was also felt that the gene was a unit that would not change, hence predictions could be made about the genetic worth of children by looking at the genetic worth of their parents. It was the belief of biologists that many human conditions such as feeble-mindedness, congenital defects, epilepsy and other diseases were inherited by direct transmission, and hence, could be controlled by the use of negative eugenics.20-22 During the first part of the 20th century in the United States, there was increasing concern about social issues.23-29 Such subjects as degeneracy, drunkenness, unemployment, criminality, prostitution and chronic alcoholism were believed to be genetically related, and hence, could be controlled by eugenic measures.20-22,30

This why eugenics relies on pseudoscience in a nutshell.

Intelligence studies go into heritability, not whether one inherits intelligence.
Your prediction about minority welfare queens is hopelessly wrong too. Birth rates have fallen.

The 50s baby boom was not the norm.

 

[SmartCat]

I never claimed that darwinian evolution asserted anything about acquired characteristics, im talking about the claims of eugenics. Evolution actually deals with the change in allele frequencies over successive generations in a population over time. Genetic changes tend to be plastic to the environmental selection pressures. The theory doesnt deal with higher or lower species, it deals with change.

Your problem is you keep switching between heritability and inheritable.

Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/; from Greek εὐ- "good" and γενής "come into being, growing")[1][2] is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population,[3][4] historically by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior or promoting those judged to be superior.[5]

The concept predates the term; Plato suggested applying the principles of selective breeding to humans around 400 BC. Early advocates of eugenics in the 19th century regarded it as a way of improving groups of people. In contemporary usage, the term eugenics is closely associated with scientific racism and white supremacy.[2] Modern bioethicists who advocate new eugenics characterise it as a way of enhancing individual traits, regardless of group membership.

While eugenic principles have been practiced as early as ancient Greece, the contemporary history of eugenics began in the early 20th century, when a popular eugenics movement emerged in the United Kingdom,[6] and then spread to many countries, including the United States, Canada,[7] and most European countries. In this period, people from across the political spectrum espoused eugenic ideas. Consequently, many countries adopted eugenic policies, intended to improve the quality of their populations' genetic stock. Such programs included both positive measures, such as encouraging individuals deemed particularly "fit" to reproduce, and negative measures, such as marriage prohibitions and forced sterilization of people deemed unfit for reproduction. Those deemed "unfit to reproduce" often included people with mental or physical disabilities, people who scored in the low ranges on different IQ tests, criminals and "deviants," and members of disfavored minority groups.

Eugenics - Wikipedia

The term "deviant" is too broad for me to endorse making one eligible for sterilization. Brilliant people can be found in each of the races, but they are more frequently found in some races than in other races.

I would not require sterilization. I would like to eliminate Temporary Assistance for Need Families (TANF), and introduce free abortion on demand. A single free abortion can save a small fortune in crimes not committed, the cost of our welfare and criminal justice systems, and the cost of trying to educate those who lack the intelligence to learn much of value.

 

[bomberfox]

As for colder environments im going to need a source on that.

 

[bomberfox]

Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/; from Greek εὐ- "good" and γενής "come into being, growing")[1][2] is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population,[3][4] historically by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior or promoting those judged to be superior.[5]

The concept predates the term; Plato suggested applying the principles of selective breeding to humans around 400 BC. Early advocates of eugenics in the 19th century regarded it as a way of improving groups of people. In contemporary usage, the term eugenics is closely associated with scientific racism and white supremacy.[2] Modern bioethicists who advocate new eugenics characterise it as a way of enhancing individual traits, regardless of group membership.

While eugenic principles have been practiced as early as ancient Greece, the contemporary history of eugenics began in the early 20th century, when a popular eugenics movement emerged in the United Kingdom,[6] and then spread to many countries, including the United States, Canada,[7] and most European countries. In this period, people from across the political spectrum espoused eugenic ideas. Consequently, many countries adopted eugenic policies, intended to improve the quality of their populations' genetic stock. Such programs included both positive measures, such as encouraging individuals deemed particularly "fit" to reproduce, and negative measures, such as marriage prohibitions and forced sterilization of people deemed unfit for reproduction. Those deemed "unfit to reproduce" often included people with mental or physical disabilities, people who scored in the low ranges on different IQ tests, criminals and "deviants," and members of disfavored minority groups.

Eugenics - Wikipedia

The term "deviant" is too broad for me to endorse making one eligible for sterilization. Brilliant people can be found in each of the races, but they are more frequently found in some races than in other races.

I would not require sterilization. I would like to eliminate Temporary Assistance for Need Families (TANF), and introduce free abortion on demand. A single free abortion can save a small fortune in crimes not committed, the cost of our welfare and criminal justice systems, and the cost of trying to educate those who lack the intelligence to learn much of value.

Past tense smurt cat the Romans used to add lead to their drinks. You are the flat earther that is going to be replaced pretty soon. Birth rates are already falling across the board. Thats also not how tendencies work. I think you think all traits are 100% genetically determined which shows you know nothing about human development. With your obsession with the mythical past, im starting to think you are further right than a paleoconservative. You are just a boomer kid that never moved on.

You are mixing heritability with inheritability again. If you are going to use heritability, you shouldnt go to wugenics.

 

[bomberfox]

The social darwinist ****wits are just going to have to pay their taxes like everyone else or enjoy prison, we are gonna simply replace you.

 

[bomberfox]

Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/; from Greek εὐ- "good" and γενής "come into being, growing")[1][2] is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population,[3][4] historically by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior or promoting those judged to be superior.[5]

The concept predates the term; Plato suggested applying the principles of selective breeding to humans around 400 BC. Early advocates of eugenics in the 19th century regarded it as a way of improving groups of people. In contemporary usage, the term eugenics is closely associated with scientific racism and white supremacy.[2] Modern bioethicists who advocate new eugenics characterise it as a way of enhancing individual traits, regardless of group membership.

While eugenic principles have been practiced as early as ancient Greece, the contemporary history of eugenics began in the early 20th century, when a popular eugenics movement emerged in the United Kingdom,[6] and then spread to many countries, including the United States, Canada,[7] and most European countries. In this period, people from across the political spectrum espoused eugenic ideas. Consequently, many countries adopted eugenic policies, intended to improve the quality of their populations' genetic stock. Such programs included both positive measures, such as encouraging individuals deemed particularly "fit" to reproduce, and negative measures, such as marriage prohibitions and forced sterilization of people deemed unfit for reproduction. Those deemed "unfit to reproduce" often included people with mental or physical disabilities, people who scored in the low ranges on different IQ tests, criminals and "deviants," and members of disfavored minority groups.

Eugenics - Wikipedia

The term "deviant" is too broad for me to endorse making one eligible for sterilization. Brilliant people can be found in each of the races, but they are more frequently found in some races than in other races.

I would not require sterilization. I would like to eliminate Temporary Assistance for Need Families (TANF), and introduce free abortion on demand. A single free abortion can save a small fortune in crimes not committed, the cost of our welfare and criminal justice systems, and the cost of trying to educate those who lack the intelligence to learn much of value.

Yeah those kids whos father died should have known to be born from a better family those ****in criminals amirite?

 

[MaryP]

In Kathrine Stewart's new book, “The Power Worshippers - Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism” she defines religious nationalism as a political, not religious, ideology with the goal of gaining political and social power. The movement is anti-democratic. It claims the only legitimate government is based on a strict interpretation of their religion.

The US movement began with Jerry Falwell and other white southern conservative leaders sifting through a list of topics for a central issue that would galvanize and unite conservative white Christians into a political power house. They came to “abortion” saw it’s potential and created the pro-life movement.

As Ms Stewart says, today’s pro-life religion was created for the political purpose of establishing religious and political ascendency over other religions, turning religious freedom into religious privilege for themselves and funneling a substantial and increasing flow of federal money into the churches of their movement: essentially a theocracy.

For those of us who value the secular republic the founding fathers established with the Constitution it is time to counter the power and political meddling of religious nationalism.

I wasn't going to say this outloud, but I've been thinking that some of the posters here that are so vehement and angry about abortion, calling us murderers, etc are too hateful to actually care about the lives of the unborn. The two just don't go together. I agree with Ms Stewart that it's nothing but great political ammunition.

 

[Taylor]

The US movement began with Jerry Falwell and other white southern conservative leaders sifting through a list of topics for a central issue that would galvanize and unite conservative white Christians into a political power house. They came to “abortion” saw it’s potential and created the pro-life movement.

...riiiight. Because abortion wasn't at all a sensitive issue before Jerry Falwell and others decided to make it one.

How old is this woman?

 

[weaver2]

...riiiight. Because abortion wasn't at all a sensitive issue before Jerry Falwell and others decided to make it one. How old is this woman?

There were issues with making abortion legal but they came mostly from the AMA. Look it up.
The creation of abortion as a way to create a conservative Christian power block is as fascinating as it is depressing. Conservative Baptists at first hailed the legalization of abortion a a positive move, claiming the it was good to get government regulations out of people's personal lives. And Falwell and Weyrich actually did sit down and go through a list of possible issues to pick out the one that could appeal to the most people on the most levels as the movement issue. Google "origins of the anti-abortion movement"

 

[weaver2]

When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.” Paul Weyrich founder along with Jerry Falwell, of the Moral Majority as a political movement.

The Real Origins of the Religious Right

They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation.

www.politico.com

When someone tells you they will "re-create" the USA when they get power it might be wise to ask what that recreation will look like.

 

[Glitch]

In Kathrine Stewart's new book, “The Power Worshippers - Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism” she defines religious nationalism as a political, not religious, ideology with the goal of gaining political and social power. The movement is anti-democratic. It claims the only legitimate government is based on a strict interpretation of their religion.

The US movement began with Jerry Falwell and other white southern conservative leaders sifting through a list of topics for a central issue that would galvanize and unite conservative white Christians into a political power house. They came to “abortion” saw it’s potential and created the pro-life movement.

As Ms Stewart says, today’s pro-life religion was created for the political purpose of establishing religious and political ascendency over other religions, turning religious freedom into religious privilege for themselves and funneling a substantial and increasing flow of federal money into the churches of their movement: essentially a theocracy.

For those of us who value the secular republic the founding fathers established with the Constitution it is time to counter the power and political meddling of religious nationalism.

There is no "rise of religious nationalism."

Both the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition were destroyed by the IRS. When religion creates organizations that involve themselves in politics they lose their tax exemption. Which is precisely what happened with the MM and the CC. Once they were no longer tax exempt, they quickly folded and disappeared. While they certainly were able to get media attention, they didn't accomplish anything. The driving issue for the MM during the 1980s was their Prayer Amendment. They were counting on Reagan's approval, since they gave him their support. However, Reagan refused to support the Prayer Amendment. By the late-1980s the MM was history, only to be replaced by the CC, which would also not last a decade.

You will also note that there has been no religious organization to replace either of them since the 1990s. So this notion of "religious nationalism" is pure BS.

 

[Paradoxical]

In Kathrine Stewart's new book, “The Power Worshippers - Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism” she defines religious nationalism as a political, not religious, ideology with the goal of gaining political and social power. The movement is anti-democratic. It claims the only legitimate government is based on a strict interpretation of their religion.

The US movement began with Jerry Falwell and other white southern conservative leaders sifting through a list of topics for a central issue that would galvanize and unite conservative white Christians into a political power house. They came to “abortion” saw it’s potential and created the pro-life movement.

As Ms Stewart says, today’s pro-life religion was created for the political purpose of establishing religious and political ascendency over other religions, turning religious freedom into religious privilege for themselves and funneling a substantial and increasing flow of federal money into the churches of their movement: essentially a theocracy.

For those of us who value the secular republic the founding fathers established with the Constitution it is time to counter the power and political meddling of religious nationalism.

I am as anti Christian as anyone here but to suggest there is a current movement for religious nationalism is idiotic. Christianity is declining rapidly in America over the past three decades and the power they once had has waned along with it. The scare tactics of yesteryear have lost their luster and now it is fashionable to call Christians wacky and not be shouted down as you would have a few decades back. For that matter, bill Maher did just that when he called the new SC nominee a whack job because she is Catholic. NO ONE criticized him for that when just 20-30 years ago he probably would have lost his job for it.

Rest easy, there is no religious nationalism going on.

 

[weaver2]

I am as anti Christian as anyone here but to suggest there is a current movement for religious nationalism is idiotic. Christianity is declining rapidly in America over the past three decades and the power they once had has waned along with it. The scare tactics of yesteryear have lost their luster and now it is fashionable to call Christians wacky and not be shouted down as you would have a few decades back. For that matter, bill Maher did just that when he called the new SC nominee a whack job because she is Catholic. NO ONE criticized him for that when just 20-30 years ago he probably would have lost his job for it.Rest easy, there is no religious nationalism going on.

Just because the religious Right hasn't been completely successful doesn't mean it isn't working hard to bring about Paul Weyrich's vision.
"When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.”

 

[bongsaway]

Do we really need a book to tell us the gop doesn't really care about any of these issues, they are used strictly to gin up their base. They play on religion and if trump isn't proof enough of that, you're a blind closed minded person who doesn't want to see.

Money and power are the only two things the politicians of the gop care about and yet they election after election convince their base they are out for the working man. I want some of that magic pixie dust.