For evolution teaches that a species or kind divides from its original species into a new viable species. Or in human terms .....a better species or kind of human... a superior human race.
Social Darwinism, which is an aberration of Darwinian thought, ≠ evolutionary theory. Its emergence was fiercely criticized by biologists and paleontologists (e.g., Lester Ward). You are making the same mistake that early proponents of social "Darwinism" made, and that is the assumption that fitness-to-survive in a given environmental context is the same as overall superiority. Fitness ≠ superiority, so phrases like a "superior human race" are not consistent with the Neo-Darwinian paradigm.
The underlying rationale is that the local countries bloodlines or DNA or genes mutated in that countries borders, is somehow superior to those humans in another country.
Wat? Most people don't think about bloodlines or DNA or genes or mutations when engaging in warfare. I don't recall this kind of thinking cropping up during the Vietnam War, or any of the Gulf wars, etc. You're pretty much making this up. Welp.
This they know is a forced doctrine in biology as taught in all the worldly universities, and fits in perfectly with their propaganda means of promoting their wars. Everyone wants to feel superior to others, its part of their self esteem, seemingly being BETTER than others. The leaders of these countries can feed this competitive waring motivation to their so called superior or chosen people... so they feel a need to go to war and sacrifice all for their small nationalistic patriotic country.
Except that none of this is consistent with evolutionary theory. In fact, it was evolutionary biology and related disciplines (anthropology, genomics) which forever shattered the notion of biological races and biological determinism. So, if anything, evolutionary theory has produced rigorous anti-racist lines of evidence (thanks in large part to Franz Boas). I don't think you know what's taught in the "worldly universities" when it comes to biology and stuff.
Evolutionists individually might not want this outcome but nevertheless evolution can and is being used as background basis for exterminating leser races or people.
Yet love and knowing we are all the same and of the same stock and none of us are evolving into a better species through luck and chance but only by honest humility and LOVE in working together...can we survive.
Nice attempt to make us all feel good and warm inside, but yeah you obv. don't know anything about evolutionary theory, anthropology, etc.
There may be better sources, not taking the time right now.
That article shoots your thesis full of holes more than it demonstrates that Sanger "who founded Planned Parenthood used the ToE to justify her belief that the black races are inferior to whites." It's a popular right-wing myth, but it isn't exactly true. Where in that article do you find support for your assertion?
OK I'll agree that the racist motivation is exaggerated for Sanger even if there is a tie between the ToE and eugenics and racism in general.
The "tie" between Darwinian theory and racism was pseudoscientific nonsense (e.g., see Stephen J. Gould's critique of Morton's skull analyses), relying on shoddy methods and pure ideology. So racism is not a necessary outcome of Darwinian theory; rather, Darwinian theory was exploited by the white power structure to "justify" racism. Racists always find a way to twist facts to suit their ideology, and Darwinian theory was no different. Nor was Christianity immune to the distortions of the racist power system.
Sanger believed in the importance of eugenics for eliminating the "unfit" from the gene pool, and it was part of her program that became Planned Parenthood.
But Sanger was ostensibly not a mainstream eugenicist; indeed, her advocacy of birth control was an argument against proponents of eugenics. While eugenicists were carrying out forced sterilizations -- using state power to determine who was "fit" and "unfit" -- Sanger argued that the decision of childbirth was a decision to be made by the woman, not the state.
It's not clear how much racism might have been involved in her statement that the black community needs eugenics [my comment: you mean more birth control, not "more eugenics"] more than others.
I see no evidence that anti-black racism was involved in Sanger's position. A lack of birth control for the black community was a method of repression and subjugation by the white state; while the white elite could send their pregnant daughters on a "vacation to Europe" to take care of the matter, the poorer black community had no such options and thus continued to be crushed by the poverty that results from larger families and a lack of access to capital. As Sanger noted:
"I believe that the Negro question is coming definitely to the fore in America, not only because of the war, but in anticipation of the place the Negro will occupy after the peace. I think it is magnificent that we are in on the ground floor, helping Negroes to control their birthrate, to reduce their high infant and maternal death rate, to maintain better standards of health and living for those already born, and to create better opportunities to help themselves, and to rise to their own heights through education and the principles of democracy."
Here I concur with Valenza's 1985 conclusion that "It would be more valid to accuse Margaret Sanger of racism if, after considering the urgent need among black people for the health benefits of birth control, she had chosen to do nothing" (in: Family Planning Perspectives, 1985, "Was Margaret Sanger a Racist?").
Well, I was explaining why Christians object to Planned Parenthood and the Bible is patriarchal...
Yes, the Bible is indeed patriarchal, and that's why we see the Bible (well, esp. OT) more sharply condemn certain sexual acts between consenting adults than it condemns rape. I mean, apparently adultery -- an act between consenting adults -- is more deplorable to that psychopath in the sky than rape is, because adultery made it into the Ten Commandments.
I think patriarchy is a good system myself, somebody has to be in charge...
As to why genital anatomy should determine who is in charge (in terms of systematic and cultural power structure), the proponents of patriarchy have no ready answer.
Actually ALL sexual misbehavior is included in the commandment against adultery...
And yet the Ten Commandments make no direct mention of rape, but do distinctly mention adultery. One wonders why an act between consenting adults was deemed more worthy of outright condemnation than rape.
Violations of the command against adultery are very destructive of society, which really ought to be apparent to anyone who has paid attention to the cultural deterioration of the West over the last few decades.
The current "cultural deterioration of the West" is a fantasy. There is no ongoing cultural deterioration of the West under the ethical and moral standards of my generation.
But what does that have to do with patriarchy?
Rape is far more prevalent in patriarchal societies than in matriarchal or gylanic ones.
While fallen human nature does breed tyrannies, the true function of patriarchy is responsibility and caretaking, not domination.
Why should genital anatomy determine who is in charge?
Added Comment: If the "true function" of patriarchy is not domination, then one wonders why rape is more prevalent in patriarchal societies than in matriarchal ones.
As I said rape is included under the command against adultery and is spelled out in other places.
And as I said, if your celestial psychopath wasn't a patriarchal monster, rape would have been directly mentioned and condemned in the Ten Commandments, instead of adultery.
But as for adultery it is a violation of someone's marriage, an offense against that person, not exactly a victimless crime...
There is no comparison between adultery and rape. Rape survivors go through clinical depression, PTSD, and suicide at a far higher rate than adultery "victims" ever will (not to mention social shame and risk of murder at the hands of the rapist). So why again did Yahweh choose adultery over rape, when mulling over what to mention directly in the Ten Commandments?
And then it's dealt with in Deuteronomy 22 as well, the rape of a young woman betrothed to another, verses 25-26, where the man is sentenced to be put to death for it. In the case of the rape of an unmarried woman he must pay her father a fine of 50 shekels and must marry her and never be allowed to divorce her -- because he humiliated her and she'd be vulnerable to sexual predation and other humiliations and dangers after the rape if he didn't.
Deut. 22:23-24 -- "If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife."
The rape victim here is to be executed. Which is more patriarchal psychopathy that the Old Testament god is fond of.
Notice where I bolded this, too. The man is to be executed because he violated another man's wife, not because he, y'know, he raped a woman. It is as if rape in itself is less condemned if the woman is not "betrothed" to another man, so here we see your god legislating morality on the basis of women as property of a male instead of on the basis of women as humans.
Well, maybe after a couple more decades you'll see it.
The patriarchal Bible doesn't leave the rape victim without justice.
Marrying your rapist isn't justice, Faith. Executing a rape victim because she didn't cry for help isn't justice. What kind of twisted morality do you have here?
That's not the reason given in the Bible, it's the fact that Adam was created first (See 1 Corinthians 11: 2-16).
Why should being created first with certain genital parts mean that all individuals with those genital parts should be in charge -- or benefit from a social structure that systematically advantages them?
Women came under the rule of men at the Fall, which destroyed the original role relationships between men and women.
And now you're making stuff up that runs counter to archeological research.
Well, y9ou are determined to make something evil out of a good. In the context of the ancient society where the rape victim would only have been further victimized if he didn't marry her, punishing the rapist by death would only leave her vulnerable to more dangers. So whereas the rapist in the other example where the betrothed woman did resist was put to death, it wouldn't serve the rape victim in the other case to put him to death. It doesn't sound very pleasant to have to marry the man who raped you but in the context of that society it would have been far better than the alternative.
The alternative is for Yahweh, who seems more than capable of dispensing clear-cut guidelines for a rebellious society, to lay out laws that are actually just -- regardless of the patriarchal social structure of this ancient society. Instead, Yahweh simply caves in to the idiosyncrasies of a culture that denied the humanity of women. (Meanwhile, Yahweh is eager to exact vengeance on those who harm his inferiority-complex-laden ego)
And, really, the whole point of putting both to death when the woman didn't cry out or resist in a town where she would have been heard is that she wasn't being raped.
Apparently Yahweh (and you) don't understand the psychology of individuals who are being actively raped.
You are also making way too much of the word "adultery." It's the one commandment that deals with sexual sins of all kinds, it stands for every kind of sexual violation.
I mean, I know how to read Hebrew so maybe you'd like to show me exactly how the Hebrew word תִנְאָף (appearing in Exodus 20:12) translates to "sexual sins of all kinds."
...evolution is a tool of racism, and backs up racism...
No, because molecular evolutionary approaches empirically shattered the concept of biological race. So it does the exact opposite of "backing up" racism. Now, are you going to respond to this point of mine or are you going to get on your pulpit and talk about the Lord and swallowing?