I have written before about how deadly Planned Parenthood is for all groups but especially for American blacks. Planned Parenthood is a misnomer as it has nothing to do with parenthood but rather it is all about killing the unborn.
abortion
When politicians make laws on whether one lives or dies you had better get worried. Abortion of a human baby has never be abhorrent for the Leftist or the evolutionist. Now, euthanasia is being pushed as a HUMAN RIGHT! Here in Australia ‘In the same week that Stevie Nicks boasted there would have been no Fleetwood Mac had she not aborted her baby, Queensland Premier Anastacia Palaszczuk has vowed to legalise assisted dying.
Stevie Nicks confirmed what honest people have always known – that, despite the fog pro-abortionists like to create, abortion destroys human life for the convenience of others.
She told The Guardian she had conceived a child with The Eagles singer Don Henley in 1979 but that “there’s just no way that I could have had a child then, working as hard as we worked constantly.”
“I knew that the music we were going to bring to the world was going to heal so many people’s hearts and make people so happy. And I thought: you know what? That’s really important.”
So Stevie Nicks had an abortion.
As Fleetwood Mac famously sang, “Loving you isn’t the right thing to do. How can I ever change things that I feel. You can go your own way.”
Freed from the inconvenience of a child, she went on to sell more than 120 million records and to be twice inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
“If I had not had that abortion, I’m pretty sure there would have been no Fleetwood Mac,” she said.
And we all thought the cost of a Fleetwood Mac album was around $20.
When you feel no shame admitting that you judged the life of your unborn child to be of less value than the possibility of a pop music career, you are acknowledging that our culture has crossed a moral line.
But our obsession with individual autonomy – celebrated by Stevie Nicks – is something that should give Queenslander’s reason for pause as Labor promises to legalise euthanasia.
If people applaud Stevie Nicks for judging another human’s life worth sacrificing for a Grammy Award, what is to stop those same people judging our lives worth sacrificing for their own peculiar reasons?
This is not a question the Queensland Premier wants anyone to seriously consider which is why she waited until the middle of a pandemic and just two weeks before the state election to announce her euthanasia policy.
Better for voters to feel rather than think when it comes to euthanasia. And what better time to feel the argument for death than after suffering for months at the hands of a stubborn virus and soul-destroying lockdowns.
The argument for euthanasia derives its emotional power from the picture painted of a terminally ill patient with nothing but intense suffering standing between him and death.
The picture is largely false since there are ways to manage pain for the terminally ill.
Moreover, there are many people in discomfort – physical or emotional – but who are not terminal. Are they to be denied the permanent relief euthanasia provides for want of a terminal illness? But I digress.
The euthanasia candidate will be in a diminished physical condition and probably frightened or despairing, or both. All of which means that his will and his capacity for independent thought will also be weakened.
He will be flat on his back with his relatives and the authority figure of the doctor looking down at him. There can be few better subjects and settings for subtle or not-so-subtle psychological coercion.
The patient will know and will probably be informed that prolonging his life – which the physician says will be brief – places an enormous emotional and financial burden on his family. Many people in this position are likely to accept premature death under coercion.
This is what progressives call “death with dignity”.
There is also the very real prospect that some people who request euthanasia are really looking for reassurance that they are loved and valued despite their physical decline. If the family and the doctor fail to pick up on this, the patient may become trapped by the request and feel that he or she has no choice but to die.
Is this the autonomy of the patient that euthanasia supporters insist is their object?
The systematic killing of unborn children in huge numbers is part of a general disregard for human life that has been growing for some time. Abortion on its own did not cause the disregard, but it certainly deepens and legitimates the nihilism that is spreading in our culture and that finds killing for convenience acceptable.
We crossed lines, at first slowly and now rapidly. We killed unborn children for convenience and harvested their foetal tissue – for science of course – all the while calling it “reproductive health”.
As Stevie Nicks would sing: “Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies.”
Abortion has coarsened us.
If it is permissible to kill the unborn human for convenience, it is surely permissible to kill those thought to be soon to die for the same reason.
And it is inevitable that many who are not in danger of imminent death will be killed to ease their families of burden.
Convenience has, for some time, been the central theme of our culture. Humans tend to be inconvenient at both ends of their lives.’https://spectator.com.au/2020/10/anastacia-palaszczuks-euthanasia-pledge-and-the-culture-of-killing-for-convenience/
It is nigh impossible to obtain how many babies are murdered (aborted) in Australia each year. One Queensland organization says ‘There is no standardised national data collection on unplanned pregnancy and abortion in Australia, and different states have different laws and regulations – and therefore different reporting mechanisms – regarding abortion procedures.’https://www.childrenbychoice.org.au/factsandfigures/australian-abortion-statistics
Now, the push to make it easier for more and more babies to be murdered is relentlessly pushed by many Australian politicians and ‘A bill now before the upper house of State Parliament, commissioned by Attorney-General Vickie Chapman and introduced by Minister Michelle Lensink, would radically liberalise SA’s abortion laws.
The bill is being put forward under the guise of mere “decriminalisation” – a tactic used by abortion proponents interstate.
At present, abortion in SA is an exemption under criminal law – that is, it’s illegal to take a human life except in the case of an abortion under set conditions.
Backers of “decriminalisation” frequently state that abortion is no different to any other health matter and want it treated as such.
Even if that were true (and it’s not) decriminalisation is a cover for radical change.
- The Termination of Pregnancy Bill would permit abortion for any reason up to 22 weeks and 6 days’ gestation – and beyond that (right up to birth) if two doctors agree it is “appropriate”.
- Current requirements for hospital attendance by women seeking an abortion will be abandoned in an attempt to liberalise the use of do-it-at-home chemical abortions, e.g. RU486.
- Health practitioners will also have their right to conscientious objection severely eroded. They will be required to participate in an abortion in cases of “emergency” and must at all times refer patients seeking an abortion to another health practitioner (in other words, making them a party to the act).
This list of concerns is far from exhaustive.
The bill was only introduced yesterday, but Minister Lensink has stated that she wants the upper house to pass it very soon.
Parliament will resume 10-12 November.
It’s absolutely critical that we speak up NOW before it’s too late.‘https://www.austfamily.com.au/stand_for_life_sa?utm_campaign=2010_sa_abortion1&utm_campaign=201016_sa_abortion_pc2_2&utm_medium=email&utm_medium=email&utm_source=afc&utm_source=afc
Psalm 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made
‘I don’t know if you see this above sign in your area, but it’s everywhere in coastal cities of the Western United States. In Berkeley and adjacent cities, it’s been at about every house or yard for a few years. Here in Oregon, I saw one on our street in our neighborhood too. I picked this version as an example, because the one I saw started with “Science Is Real.” They’re called “Values Signs,” to promote so-called leftist “values.”
The list is a mixed bag of bromides that read like a religious creed, starting with “we believe.” Leftists treat it like a creed, including a punishment or shunning of those who violate the precepts. An irony of “we believe science is real” is how science has anything to do with belief. If it is real, you know it, not believe it, don’t you? So, in essence the values sign is a doctrinal statement like a church would produce.
The consequences for breaking these decrees are severe in present society. They say, to them kindness is everything. No way. These are some of the most bitter, angry, unkind people I’ve ever met, and it’s been very consistent. I’ve never met people who are so unfriendly, distant, and irritated. Rarely do people with this sign in their yard show kindness. They are plain mean in almost every instance. They are “kind” only if you accept all their list with their definitions with exuberance. What I’m saying is that these are ultimate hypocrites with their standards like the Pharisees of Jesus’ day.
Through the sign, its proponents proclaim their own kindness, their own righteousness in essence, that they “believe” all these things, and I’ve never seen the righteousness lived or the beliefs followed. The sign acts as “virtue signaling,” a modern way to stand on the street corner and beat on their chest to be seen of others. It also functions at accosting the people reading it, their chosen targets of these epithets. It warns away those who disagree that they are not welcome. Stay away. Don’t talk to me.
I can’t cover every point in one post, but they say, science is real. The postmodernism that buttresses the left doesn’t rely on science. According to postmodernism, which includes critical theory, science arrives at its conclusions through the social forces of power and oppression. The left doesn’t care about science. It disregards biological sex, except when it’s convenient. It ignores the evidence of life in the mother’s womb, seen through the ultrasound and surgery on the unborn baby in the uterus. It avoids the fossil record with its evidence of kinds and no transitional forms. It promotes psychological theories like they are science, which are overturned multiple times in a matter of years. If the scientific definition of a pandemic is 1-3 percent deaths in the country, Covid-19 isn’t a pandemic with its .06% deaths, even counting every death with the virus, not because of the virus alone. According to the CDC, only 6% of Covid-19 deaths don’t involve comorbidities, that is, other causes besides Covid-19.
A couple of weeks ago, I spoke to an atheist at his stamp shop, who said he was scientific, so he couldn’t believe the Bible. Among other points in that conversation, I advocated Adam Smith and his Wealth of Nations as science, and he scoffed that economics wasn’t a science, even though economics uses the scientific method to explain economic behavior. The Bible makes economic statements as fact, such as “the borrower is servant to the lender” (Proverbs 22:7). This is economic and this is science. Sure, science is real, but not the so-called science of the virtue signaler. When he says “science is real,” he means that God and the Bible are not.
Do black lives matter? Yes. I haven’t heard of a poll that asked Americans if black lives mattered to them, but I’m guessing that if that poll were done, it would be something close to 99% plus of white Americans would say, “Yes, black lives matter.” All black lives matter, not just the ones killed by white police officers. Don’t be fooled into thinking that the three words, black lives matter, mean that black lives matter. BLM is just a political tool. It’s not saving black lives. It’s killing black lives faster than if it did not exist. And that is scientific, if science were real. But again, they’re not interested in actual science.
They say, no human is illegal, because that is their stand in support of illegal aliens, the legal terminology to refer to a person in the United States who is breaking federal immigration laws. “Illegal” means “unlawful” or “criminal.” The non-United States citizen is a criminal or an illegal. The leftist platitude advocates open borders, the elimination of nations, and general lawlessness. It stands for the destruction of the United States.
Do women possess human rights? Yes. Rights apply to every human being. They come from God. A purpose of government is to protect the rights of human beings. Rights are liberties. Every human being is born with certain rights, that among these are life, liberty, and property. The point of saying that women’s rights are human rights is to eliminate distinctions between men and women. Rather than giving women equal opportunity, the goal of this feminist ideal is equal outcome. It promotes women in positions of authority against natural law. If rights come from God and God requires men in authority, then it isn’t a right for women to be in authority. The leftist adage especially emphasizes a woman’s “reproductive rights,” where she is given the choice to end an unwanted pregnancy with abortion. The man has no say in the life or death of his child.
If sex is a social construct, then isn’t a woman’s right also a violation of human rights? This was the point that J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter author, was attempting to make according to classic feminism, when she was canceled for her insensitivity to transgenders. She made the controversial following statement earlier this year: “If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased.” I’m just saying that women’s rights can’t be human rights if there is no way to distinguish between men and women.
“Love is love” relates obviously to same-sex marriage. However, again how can there be same sex if sex is a social construct? Love can’t even be love, because love must mean whatever someone wants it to mean. This is the latest iteration of the world for the left’s value sign owner. Can he/she/it even claim the sign as his/her/its property? Sign person didn’t build it. Sign person doesn’t own it. And if it causes me psychological harm, then I’m entitled to destroy it, or at least sue for psychological damages, as a means of saving my life.
A world so lacking in certainty is left to proclaim inane statements like “love is love,” defining a word with the same word. Jerry Seinfeld makes light of this inanity in a comedic bit, when he says:
People like to say those things. “It is what it is.” You see, if you repeat a word twice in a sentence, you can say that with a lot of confidence. “Business is business.” “Rules are rules.” “Deal’s a deal.” “When we go in there, as long as we know what’s what and who’s who, whatever happens, happens, and it is what it is.”
People laugh, but they’re now laughing at themselves. If it’s funny though, then it’s funny, even if it’s you that’s you who’s a joke.
“Kindness is everything” comes from the most intolerant generation in the history of human kind. They invented ghosting their parents. They don’t want to be challenged for anything they say or do. They want total tolerance. This is the “kindness” of which they speak. They don’t mean, be kind to you. They mean being kind to them, tolerating them, is everything.
The Apostle Paul writes that love “is kind,” but he also writes that love “rejoiceth not in iniquity.” John writes in 2 John 1:6, “This is love, that we walk after his commandments.” When 1 Corinthians 13 says, “love is kind,” the Greek word for “kind” is chretos, which occurs seven times in the New Testament. The word pertains to moral goodness and in Romans 2:4, it is translated “goodness,” as in “the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance.” True kindness is doing what is absolute best for another person, like God does for us. That would mean rejecting the values of the leftist value sign, which contradicts the goodness of God, the holy, moral nature of the Good God.’https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/
If you by chance wake up on election day and go and vote for Sleepy Joe what kind of America will you get? ‘Those comforting themselves with the idea that a vote for Joe Biden is a “return to normalcy” are delusional. A vote for Joe Biden is a vote for an America where pro-life laws are overturned, religious liberty is destroyed, American power is used to bully other nations into accepting the LGBT agenda, abortion on demand and funded by the taxpayer is considered a human right, Christian adoption agencies are forced out of business if they refuse to place children with same-sex couples, and those with unwanted same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria are banned from getting the assistance they desperately desire. That would be Joe Biden’s America.’https://www.prophecynewswatch.com/article.cfm?recent_news_id=4308
Strange things are happening. ‘The meltdown of the left over the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg was immediate and predictable. Viral videos circulating on Twitter show young women in hysterics, shrieking at their phones — one girl screamed that she hates those who are trying to stop abortions, and that she wished she’d been aborted herself. Another woman, who howled F-bombs with impressive lung power, berated the Notorious RBG for not hanging on just a little bit longer. The sheer force of emotion was slightly unnerving.
The reaction is ongoing, and it is getting sicker and stranger. Take, for example, Jamie Smith, a “40-something attorney and mother who lives in a quiet neighborhood with a yard and a garage full of scooters and soccer balls.” Smith is a normal person, she says: “I often walk with my children to get ice cream and spend weekends hiking through a national park.” But despite all that, the death of Ruth Bader Ginbsurg rocked Smith to her core and, she writes in the Huffington Post, “pushed me to join the Satanic Temple.”
“I am not the type of person who would normally consider becoming a Satanist, but these are not normal times,” Smith writes. “Our democracy has become so fragile that the loss of one of the last guardians of common sense … has put our civil and reproductive rights in danger like never before. And, so, I have turned to Satanism.”
I realize that this sounds like the sort of thing the Babylon Bee would write about abortion-supporters (perhaps to parody how Christians see abortion activists sometimes), but it helps to remember that the Satanic Temple has been fighting for abortion for some years now (they recently raffled a free abortion and declared abortion a “religious ritual”). It’s almost as strange as the effort to have witches curse President Trump, reported by the Los Angeles Times.
According to Smith, the Satanic Temple is one of the last lines of defense against “theocracy” and the pro-life movement:
Members of the Satanic Temple do not believe in the supernatural or superstition. In the same way that some Unitarians and some Jews do not believe in God, Satanic Temple members do not worship Satan and most are atheists. They are not affiliated in any way with the Church of Satan. Instead, the Satanic Temple uses the devil as a symbol of rebellion.
Just like other faiths, the Satanic Temple has a code that their members believe in deeply and use to guide their lives. These Seven Fundamental Tenets include that “one should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason,” that “the struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions,” and that “one’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.”
Reading through the Seven Tenets, I was struck by how closely they aligned with the unwritten code I had used to try to guide my own life for several years. I realized, happily, that these were my people and that I had been a Satanist for several years without even knowing it. When Justice Ginsburg’s death suddenly made combating the threats to reproductive rights and a government free from religious interference more urgent, I knew it was time to join them and support their conceptual and legal battles.
In fact, it is the Satanic Temple’s attempts to defend the abortion industry that really appealed to Smith:
By pointing out instances where the government has favored Christian rhetoric ― and filing legal challenges to stop it ― the Satanic Temple has transformed belief into action and has demonstrated what freedom fighting truly looks like. The Satanic Temple hopes to appear before the Supreme Court in a case challenging a Missouri abortion law that requires those seeking to terminate their pregnancy to first receive materials asserting that their abortion would end the life of a separate, unique person. The temple argues that these materials violate the deeply held religious beliefs of one of its members regarding bodily autonomy and scientifically reasonable personal choice. The argument the Satanic Temple is using is the same one the Supreme Court effectively endorsed in the Hobby Lobby birth control case, for which Justice Ginsburg wrote the dissent ― that no one should have to follow a law that violates their deeply held religious beliefs. If a Christian should not have to do so based on their religion, a Satanist should not have to either. This is what equality under the law means on a fundamental level.
In short, Smith writes, she joined the Satanic Temple for her young daughters. She now fears that their “right” to get an abortion is under threat, and the Satanists are fighting like Hell to ensure that abortion remains legal for her and for them. “I believe that the Satanic Temple — and its members’ dedication to fighting for true freedom — represents our best, last defense against anti-choice lawmakers[.]”
As the American republic tears itself apart over the right to kill children in the womb, the masks are coming off. A pro-abortion mother is now willing to ally with the Satanic Temple because their willingness to defend feticide represents “true freedom” — and write a long article in the Huffington Post explaining why. She has realized that she was a Satanist for years now but just never knew it — because the Satanic Temple perfectly encapsulates her pro-abortion worldview.
A few years ago, pro-lifers would have been mocked for claiming that there is any connection between the Satanic Temple and the abortion industry. Not anymore — now abortion activism is one of Satanism’s hottest selling points.’https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/ruth-bader-ginsburg-death-spurs-pro-abortion-mom-to-join-satanic-temple
Killing babies in the womb is murder and those who promote it and perform it are therefore murderers!
‘Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who defended what she argued was a constitutional “right” to partial-birth abortion, passed away on Friday night. She was 87 years old.
In the 2000 case of Stenberg vs. Carhart and the 2007 case of Gonzales vs. Carhart, Ginsburg made clear her view that the U.S. Constitution protected a “right” to abortion (as the court had ruled in the 1973 case of Roe vs. Wade and the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood vs. Casey) and that this right extended to the practice of partial-birth abortion.
The 2000 case of Stenberg vs. Carhart focused on a Nebraska state law that outlawed partial-birth abortions. At the time, there were also 29 other states that banned partial-birth abortions.
The court ruled 5-4 in Stenberg that Nebraska’s partial birth abortion law was unconstitutional. The five-justice majority included Justices Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Chief Justice William Rehnquist dissented as did Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
In his dissenting opinion in Stenberg, Justice Thomas described the partial-birth abortion procedure which the court’s majority declared a constitutional right.
“Although there are variations, it is generally performed as follows: After dilating the cervix, the physician will grab the fetus by its feet and pull the fetal body out of the uterus into the vaginal cavity. At this stage of development, the head is the largest part of the body. Assuming the physician has performed the dilation procedure correctly, the head will be held inside the uterus by the women’s cervix. While the fetus is stuck in this position, dangling partly out of the woman’s body, and just a few inches from a completed birth, the physician uses an instrument such as a pair of scissors to tear or perforate the skull. The physician will then either crush the skull or will use a vacuum to remove the brain and other intracranial contents from the fetal skull, collapse the fetus’ head, and pull the fetus from the uterus.”
In her own opinion, concurring in the court’s decision to throw out the Nebraska law banning partial-birth abortion, Justice Ginsburg cited Parenthood vs. Casey and said that the partial-birth abortion ban “violates the Constitution.”
“A state regulation that ‘has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus’ violates the Constitution,” Ginsburg wrote in her Stenberg opinion.
Seven years later, in the case of Gonzales vs. Carhart, the court reviewed a federal ban on partial-birth abortion. This time the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the partial-birth abortion ban. Justice Ginsburg wrote the dissent in which Justices Stevens, Souter and Breyer joined.
In this dissent, Ginsburg argued that it was “irrational” to ban partial-birth abortion.
“In sum,” wrote Ginsburg, “the notion that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act furthers any legitimate governmental interest is, quite simply, irrational.”
She then argued that the court’s opinion upholding the partial-birth abortion ban was part of an “effort to chip away” at the “right” to abortion.
“The Court’s defense of the statute provides no saving explanation,” wrote Ginsburg. “In candor, the Act, and the Court’s defense of it, cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court—and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women’s lives.”’https://www.cnsnews.com/article/washington/terence-p-jeffrey/supreme-court-defender-partial-birth-abortion-dies
Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies
White supremacy, hatred and loathing of other human beings is part and parcel of the hellish evolutionary belief system. In Part Two of Evolution = Racism it was ‘…reported in July 2020, The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS, which runs the zoo) said:
“We deeply regret that many people and generations have been hurt by these actions or by our failure previously to publicly condemn and denounce them,” WCS President and CEO Cristián Samper wrote. “We recognize that overt and systemic racism persists, and our institution must play a greater role to confront it.”
But was it really racism?
At the time of writing, the Black Lives Matter movement has gained widespread traction around the world. Statues of colonialists and slavery advocates are being removed or defaced, and similar apologies abound at all levels. However, although one might claim that actions of slavery advocates were racist and/or prejudiced against other humans (slavery existed in many non-white cultures too), it was undoubtedly evolutionary beliefs that led to the humiliation of this young man. Most scientists of the day had uniformly accepted Darwin’s theory of evolution, and the popular idea that humans had evolved from ape-like creatures. Indeed, the display in the monkey house where Ota Benga was exhibited was called ‘Ancient Ancestors of Man’.
The apology misses the mark, completely
As part of its mission to be more transparent, WCS is making all records and archives related to Benga publicly available.
While being politically correct and being swept up in a cultural tide, they are actually failing to be transparent. Although the zoo apologized for this racist action, nowhere in the zoo’s apologies or statements do they mention the real reason Ota Benga was put on display. It was a belief in evolution, as clearly stated by the main players of the day themselves. All five owners associated with Ota Benga—Samuel Verner, William McGee, William Hornaday, Henry Osborn, and Madison Grant—were well-known evolutionists of their day.
The climate of the day
In CMI’s groundbreaking documentary The Voyage that Shook the World, we interviewed Darwin historian, Peter Bowler, in Charles Darwin’s old Cambridge office. Bowler, although an evolutionist himself, noted about Darwin:
That by the time he writes The Descent of Man in 1871 it’s pretty clear that he, by that time, shares the growing suspicion or conviction of many Europeans. The non-white races simply do not have the capacity to be elevated properly into civilised human beings; that they are mentally and morally at a more limited level. In a sense they are stuck at an early stage in the biological evolution of the human species.
So their way of life may offer us a so fossilised relic of what our own ancestors lived like in the distant prehistoric past. But now Darwin and many of his contemporaries are beginning to realise that what they needed to claim that they are biologically relics of the past. They are in fact equivalent to earlier stages in the ascent from the apes who have been preserved in isolated locations, preserved with those earlier levels of mental and moral development. [sic]
Note the following timeline prior to Ota Benga’s humiliation:
- 1833: British Empire abolished slavery.
- 1859: Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species (26 years after abolition of slavery).
- 1865: The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery in USA.
- 1871: Darwin wrote The Descent of Man (38 years after abolition in UK and 6 years after USA).
Slavery had been outlawed for more than forty years by the time of Ota Benga’s 1906’s misadventure. In other words, Ota Benga’s humiliation had very little to do with slavery.
The aforementioned Verner (Ota Benga’s captor) was also an academic. Darwin’s views intrigued him when he wrote:
Are they men, or the highest apes? Who and what were their ancestors? What are their ethnic relations to the other races of men? Have they degenerated from larger men, or are the larger men a development of Pygmy forefathers? These questions arise naturally, and plunge the inquirer at once into the depths of the most heated scientific discussions of this generation. ‘Pygmies present a case of unmodified structure from the beginning [a view which is] … against both evolution and degeneracy. It is true that these little people have apparently preserved an unchanged physical entity for five thousand years. But that only carries the question back into the debated ground of the origin of species.
Authors Bradford (Verner’s grandson) and Plume cited some of the visitor’s questions to Ota Benga’s display.
Was he a man or monkey? Was he something in between? “Ist das ein Mensch?” asked a German spectator. “Is it a man?” … No one really mistook apes or parrots for human beings. This—it—came so much closer. Was it a man? Was it a monkey? Was it a forgotten stage of evolution?
Clearly, the display was not lost on the public of the day. It was Darwin’s views that caused this small man to be viewed as an evolutionary ‘throwback’.
But, notably, nowhere around the world do we see Darwin’s statue being removed for his offensive ideas that the non-white races were lower on the evolutionary scale.
In fact, many of the racist taunts still being used today have their roots in Darwinian ideology or the idea that black people are ‘closer to the apes’ on the evolutionary scale. For example, see our articles Do monkeys play football? and Ape’ slur against Australian indigenous footballer. Is it any wonder when we still see displays and photos in evolutionary textbooks such as the ones pictured above?
Not the only example
We’ve also previously reported about the killing and removal of various ethnic groups around the world due to evolutionary beliefs. For example, in Australia we cited reports that perhaps the bodies of 10,000 Aboriginal people were shipped to British museums.10
‘US evolutionists were also strongly involved in this flourishing ’industry‘ of gathering specimens of ’subhumans‘. The Smithsonian Institution in Washington holds the remains of 15,000 individuals of various races. And then in April 2019, The State Ethnographic Collections department and the Martin Luther University in Germany, decided to return the bones of 53 Aboriginal people to the Yawuru indigenous group from Western Australia.
The BBC reported:
Skulls and bones of Aboriginal Australians were removed by researchers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and put on show in museums around the world. However, they were displaced by settlers two centuries ago and thousands were killed. For more than 150 years, their remains were removed and sent to museums, universities and private collections in Australia and elsewhere.
But note, never once did the German institutions or the BBC mention the evolutionary reasons for their removal of these bodies from their homeland, except the evolutionary timeline invoked with it:
Australia’s native Aboriginal population has occupied the country for about 50,000 years.
It also reported that:
Germany also has large holdings of African human remains. The country has previously repatriated remains to Namibia, where it killed tens of thousands of indigenous Herero and Nama people from 1904 to 1908.
Today, the remains of tens of thousands of ethnically diverse people remain in academic institutions around the world.
‘Fess up’, Bronx Zoo!
Will the Bronx Zoo and these institutions admit the real reasons for these atrocities? Will they provide a proper apology for the evolutionary teaching that these are sub-humans—mere beasts to be studied and displayed for the advancement of mankind? Sadly these ideas still permeate the evolutionary community literature/images. Racism will continue to rear its ugly head until the underlying root philosophy is addressed. As philosopher Santayana said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
A lesson for the church also
As we’ve shown on this issue, the scientific consensus of evolution was an unstoppable juggernaut. I think of Christian missionaries who went to continents like Africa to preach the Gospel to people like Ota Benga and his kin. They did not have the DNA-science of today that confirms that all humanity is more than 99.99% percent similar. But they stood on God’s Word where it says, “And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place” (Acts 17:26). Evolutionists in Ota Benga’s day would insist that the ‘science’ was on their side, but they were wrong. Christians who are only too happy to embrace evolution should learn from these atrocities of history in the name of (evolutionary) ‘science’.’ https://creation.com/bronx-zoo-apologizes?utm_campaign=infobytes_au&utm_content=Bronx+Zoo+apologizes+for+putting+an+African+man+in+their+Monkey+House&utm_medium=email&utm_source=mailing.creation.com&utm_term=Fortnightly+Digest+-+2020.08.21
Evolution is a teaching from the pit of Hell! The theory of evolution is a fairy tale from Satan’s book on how to miss Heaven and go to Hell. The following is the first part of an article concerning evolutionary belief and ‘…the horrific and inhumane treatment of Ota Benga, a young African man who was taken from Congo in 1904 by noted African explorer and former slave trader Samuel Verner. Samuel Verner was known for his belief in evolution and for his support of white supremacist ideals. On his maiden voyage onboard the Roquelle from Antwerp to Congo, Verner was surprised that dark-skinned individuals were allowed to dine together with Caucasian shipmates. In a letter to his mother, he lamented that, “the helplessness of that race is simply appalling.” So from the very beginning of his journey to the West, Ota found himself strongly influenced by racist evolutionists.
Ota was first displayed as an ‘emblematic savage’ in the anthropology wing at the 1904 St Louis World’s Fair with other pygmies. He was eventually presented by Verner to the Bronx Zoo director, William Hornaday who came up with the idea of using Ota Benga to ‘educate’ the public about human evolution. At this time Ota Benga was just twenty-three years old. His height was only 1.5 metres (4 feet 11 eleven inches) and he only weighed 46.7 kg (103 lb). Ota Benga, which meant ‘friend’ in his native language, was often thought to be just a boy, but he was actually a twice-married father. His first wife and two children were murdered by white colonists, and his second spouse died from a poisonous snake bite.
Ota Benga became a sensation, drawing large crowds to the Zoo including over 40,000 on Sunday, 16 September 1906. Despite criticism, particularly from some church leaders at the time, Dr Hornaday insisted that he was merely offering an ‘intriguing exhibit’ for the public’s education and:
… apparently saw no difference between a wild beast and the little black man; [and] for the first time in any American zoo, a human being was displayed in a cage. Benga was given cage-mates to keep him company in his captivity—a parrot and an orang-utan named Dohong.
Nevertheless, Hornaday’s racist Darwinian ideas were clear elsewhere in his writings where he described Ota Benga as:
“… a genuine African pigmy, belonging to the subrace commonly miscalled ‘the Dwarfs.’”
The other co-founder of the Bronx Zoo was Henry Osborn. Henry Osborn was regarded as the leading evolutionist of his day, and is famed for the discovery of many dinosaurs, including the T. rex. Like Hornaday, Henry Osborn was highly racist as a result of his belief in evolution. For example, before Madison Grant (who was also influential in the founding of the Bronx Zoo) wrote his racist book, On the Passing of a Great Race, Grant shared his transcript with Osborn who made many suggestions. In the preface to the fourth edition Osborn wrote:
[I]n no other human stock which has come to this country is there displayed the unanimity of heart, mind and action which is now being displayed by the descendants of the blue-eyed, fair-haired peoples of the north of Europe. If I were asked: “What is the greatest danger which threatens the American republic to-day? I would certainly reply: The gradual dying out among our people of those hereditary traits through which the principles of our religious, political and social foundations were laid down and their insidious replacement by traits of less noble character.”
Grant’s book, as we know, was largely influential on Adolf Hitler. Hitler called the book, ‘his bible’ for it advocated a rigid system of selection through the elimination of those who are weak or unfit.
For more on this tragedy, please read our comprehensive articles on Ota Benga: The pygmy put on display and The man who was put on display in the zoo!‘ https://creation.com/bronx-zoo-apologizes?utm_campaign=infobytes_au&utm_content=Bronx+Zoo+apologizes+for+putting+an+African+man+in+their+Monkey+House&utm_medium=email&utm_source=mailing.creation.com&utm_term=Fortnightly+Digest+-+2020.08.21
One would think a black man would not want black babies murdered in or out of the womb. Well, that isn’t true of Jamil Smith, a black man who must not know the true intent of Planned Parenthood or the love of the Saviour.
‘Rolling Stone senior writer Jamil Smith opined that the word “pro-life” has so often been used in service to racism and misogyny that it should be retired like the name “Redskins.”
Smith made the comment on Twitter while responding to an incendiary comment from Bishop Talbert Swan against pro-life voters.
“Ironically, the governors most willing to watch their citizens die are the ones who have used ‘pro-life’ rhetoric to compel people of faith to support the narrow interests of corporate greed & white political power. COVID has revealed how the ‘pro-life’ movement is killing us,” tweeted Swan.
Smith agreed and added that the word should be cancelled.
“This point cannot be emphasized enough, or too often,” tweeted Smith.’ https://www.theblaze.com/news/jamil-smith-racism-prolife-redskins
Mr. Smith needs the Lord Jesus. Psalm 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
whatyareckon 