Organized hunts to find and kill Aboriginal people for the furtherance of science began a grizzly business of murder and mayhem as aboriginal burial sites were desecrated, bodies dismembered and skeletons exhumed. This followed on the heels of the publication of Origin of Species, The Preservation of Favoured Races by Charles Darwin. It was theorized by many at the time that Aboriginal people were a living example of a sub-human specie. The hint of racial superiority in the sub-title of Darwin’s book was not overlooked in Nazi Germany even if it is (completely omitted) on the infidel website.
After an outcry from Aboriginal peoples, the Natural History Museum in London November 17th (2006) issued a statememt in response to a claim lodged by the Australian Government in November 2005 and to a request under that claim from the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre (TAC) to return the remains of 17 aboriginals.

As many have said before, racism existed long before Charles Darwin arrived on the scene.  However, having said that, Charles Darwin’s theory bestowed a scientific sanction, and provided a reason for racists to acheive their ends. 

Darwinian Racism:  Darwin’s subtitle for his “Origin of Species” is “The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life,” exposing his own personal bias.  Later in “The Descent of Man” Darwin suggested that in time “the savage races” would be eliminated through a process of “natural selection.”  Hitler reaffirmed this belief in Mein Kampf.  In his view Arians were the most highly evolved humans and Jews were the least evolved and most ape like.  This same racist thinking is seen in the works of other prominent atheists such as Thomas Huxley, Herbert Spencer, Sigmund Freud and Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s founder. 

Sanger actually provided a working model for Nazi Germany’s eugenics programs.   

 

By contrast The Declaration of Independence states:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”  Atheism cannot pass down such an endowment.  Can you name an example of a nation that has a free society that is based on the premise of atheism? 

 

A belief in God is essential to the belief in the equality of man.  Even that is no guarantee of civil freedom unless it is based on the Judeo – Christian teachings of the Bible.  People are leaving non-Christian countries and migrating to Christian countries and not the other way around.  They “vote with their feet.”

 

Little by little atheists are getting favorable rulings from judges who are virtually legislating from the bench.  The myth of the “wall of separation of church and state” has become a reality by a skewed interpretation which deviates entirely from the intent of the founding fathers and doesn’t even exist in the US Constitution.  Now the government is becoming more involved in religion by actually restricting the “free exercise thereof.” 

 

The point is if the Creator provides our rights as the Declaration of Independence states, then the government cannot take those rights away they are inalienable rights.  If however the Government is the provider of those rights, then the government can also take them away. 

 

When judges can without legislation amend the US Constitution as they have with the infamous and non existent “Separation Clause” then we are already heading down the slippery slope that will spell the doom of our freedoms, and America will have been a golden dream lost to history.

Advertisements