When the word Aryan and her racy are used in conjunction together, is a sure indicator of propaganda proliferation.
For a start Aryan is from the Pharisee language and it means Iran; apart from F N and his supermen, Iran in Pharisees (Persian); meaning is; Land of the Aryan- or for beginners; Zoroastrianism- Thus Spake Zarathustra – ring some bells.
Everything after that is concocted junk.
And Illuminatie is another topic perhaps you need to study up on.
And about beloved Islam; don’t start me on the ancient version of The Church of scientology. Volumes of facts and archaeological findings tell us it is a fake, and again your Aryans had a lot to do with it.

david f,
Kant or no Kant, as I said, terms like proof or evidence have an unequivocal meaning only within a formal context (logic or mathematics). Reality as such can be seen as the proverbial elephant, and we as the six blind men: some can "feel" its “extra-scientific dimension", some cannot; some can understand Einstein's ideas about its space-time features, some cannot, etc.

>>I define a Jew as one who regards himself or herself as a Jew and is regarded as a Jew by the Jewish community.<<
That is fine, but I think Hitler and Eichmann had their own definition based on race, (not on religion), and they certainly did not ask the Jewish community. Lustiger would clearly satisfy at least the first part of your criterion, and I think one should respect this, not the least because it helped 20th century Catholics better understand the Jewish position.

I have not read Mein Kampf but I would not pay much attention to what Hitler (or "Nazi papers") claimed in support of their crazy and criminal ideas. Here I trust more Lustiger, who never claimed that past Christian anti-Judaism did not influence the atmosphere that allowed the Nazi madness to thrive. As you know, there are also people who quote Genesis to support their anti-scientific ideas although the majority of Christians and Jews do not see the book of Genesis as a scientific textbook that contradicts e.g. neo-Darwinism.

Thank you for reminding me of the conversos. They indeed were discriminated, and so were those born out of wedlock, homosexuals, American blacks etc. So I admit, Edith Stein might have been discriminated against.

When you say that "Christian religious bigotry is no more acceptable than racism" are you not downplaying the uniqueness of the evil of Holocaust, to say the least? Religious bigotry, Christian or not, unfortunately existed throughout history (and still exists), but the killing of six million people - not because of their religion (which, in theory at least, they could change) but because of their race (which they could not) - was, in my opinion unprecedented in history.

DavidF,
Are you still trying to claim that Hitler’s horrors had nothing to do with Darwin’s influence? You say Hitler made no reference to Darwin or ever used the word ‘evolution’ in Mein Kampf. Did Hitler reference Martin Luther in Mein Kampf? Yet you are happy to put a fair share of Holocaust blame on the Lutheran church.

From my copy of Darwin’s book (Priscillian’s holy book), I see that it’s subtitled ‘Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.’ It has just a bit of resemblance to Adolf’s book, Mein Kampf (My Struggle).

So Hitler never referenced Darwin or used the word ‘evolution’ in Mein Kampf. Yet he claimed that the climax of history would be the survival of the fittest race – the Aryan race. The whole book is a natural conclusion of Darwinian philosophy. It could be that he felt no need to reference Darwinism when one can naturally assume (as so many do today) that the science supporting it has been unquestionably proven.

Evolutionary thinking had become widely absorbed into German society, firstly in educated circles through the writings of Ernst Haeckel, then to the masses after Hitler’s rise through the Nazi propaganda machine. One Nazi propaganda film showed a handicapped person and declared,

“Everything in the natural world that is weak for life will ineluctably be destroyed. In the last few decades, mankind has sinned terribly against the law of natural selection. We haven’t just maintained life unworthy of life, we have even allowed it to multiply! The descendants of these sick people look like this!”

The German people were being conditioned for the massacres to come.

The tragedy today is that people are still being influenced by Haeckel’s discredited embryo drawings. Our abortion clinics use them to explain how embryos go through the fish and other recapitulation stages on their way to becoming human.

Earlier you mentioned Jehovah’s Witnesses. They also suffered in the Holocaust for their unbending ‘ignorant fundamentalist’ stance (to use the Priscillian ad hominem) with their view of the sanctity of human life, made in God’s image.

DSM,

Eugenics, or the control of atributes of the children from the control of breeding of the parents, was known as far back as Roman times and used with cattle and producing slaves with the right atributes.

Darwin's theory of evolution was another layer on top of this to infer how if this was applied in a competitive environment over millions of years, the strongest would survive.

As Hitler also used the argument that the Jews killed Jesus, one could claim that the church and thus Jesus were also partially responsible for the atrocities.

There is a gaping flaw in your reasoning, Dan S de Merengue.

>>So Hitler never referenced Darwin or used the word ‘evolution’ in Mein Kampf. Yet he claimed that the climax of history would be the survival of the fittest race – the Aryan race. The whole book is a natural conclusion of Darwinian philosophy.<<

Yet his proposed solution was extremely non-Darwinian in nature.

>>One Nazi propaganda film showed a handicapped person and declared, “Everything in the natural world that is weak for life will ineluctably be destroyed. In the last few decades, mankind has sinned terribly against the law of natural selection. We haven’t just maintained life unworthy of life, we have even allowed it to multiply<<

This is extremely warped thinking, and entirely illogical.

If natural selection is what causes those that are "weak for life" to die out, how come they were simultaneously being "allowed to multiply"?

The Darwinian answer is, of course, that these people are somehow necessary for the survival of the race, not superfluous to it. Otherwise, Darwinly, they would indeed be rubbed out.

We can without too much difficulty postulate that the Darwinian purpose in evidence here that some form of nurture, or compassion gene is essential to the race, in order to be able to perpetuate its existence.

After all, it is perfectly feasible that without this characteristic, mankind would have ceased to exist a long long time ago.

It is easy to forget that "survival of the fittest" does not mean "survival of the strongest" or "survival of the most ruthless".

Dan,
This time your crimes against logic are:-

* Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
* Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
* Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
* Confusion of correlation and causation.
* Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
* Suppressed evidence or half-truths.