I have no reason to believe this.
And as it is, I don’t see any reason not to.
I’ll stick with what Pope Pius XII wrote.
I will take a look at them. Thank you for your suggestion.
It is not acceptable when applied to “true men”. It can be acceptable when applied to ‘almost-but-not-quite-true’ men.
That allows for a population of not-quite-men, two of whom were given souls (or one given a soul and another made from a rib).
Not even close in comparison. Rosenberg had little to no effect on German policy.
Rosenberg wanted the complete rejection of Catholicism and Protestantism. … Rosenberg saw Positive Christianity as Norse paganism …It is known that Rosenberg was not the most influential of the senior Nazis within the regime. …
Ed, you are so confused about what these documents say and what they don’t say. You have simply latched on to a Catholic faith that is comfortable for you.
Please speak to your priest, or if you can find one, a good Catholic theologian, seminary professor, someone with the competence to explain all this to you in person.
You could also listen to the various talks that are out there from good Catholic scholars, but you’ve been presented with all this numerous times with no effect evidently.
I pray that you find closure in all this.
I did read it, and so? He has his opinion and I have mine, but they ain’t the same.
Oh, I see. The Darwinian “True Men may Dominate Near Men” principle. The English portrayed the Irish as ‘almost-but-not-quite-true’ men.
The Irish, too, have been compared to apes, suggesting that this comparison is a generalizable tactic of oppression, not one inspired by the color of the skin of Africans.
The Irish and the Black are compared as equally problematic to the North and the South respectively. Notice how both are drawn to look less human:
What someone may do that’s evil with objectively-derived information is not necessarily the fault of the information itself. To portray it otherwise would be like me speeding and getting into an accident and then me blaming the car.
The basic ToE in no way contributes to any evil as it’s merely an explanation of what we know about the evolution of species. What some may do with that information could produce good, bad, or neither.
As an Englishman I absolutely accept that English attitudes to the Irish were for centuries quite appalling. Is the cartoon not, in fact, American, though?
Noting that there were no black people shown, the cartoon is actually aimed at Catholics:
'Eugene Lawrence published many anti-Catholic articles in Harper’s Weekly between 1871 and 1876. Here he argues that Catholic charitable organizations are burdens on taxpayers and part of a history of church greed for “accumulating lands and endowments.” He decries the Catholic Church as a “fatal influence blighting the hopes of freemen,” a source of “moral decay” and a “political faction rather than a Christian sect.” https://newseumed.org/artifact/story-and-political-cartoon-accuse-catholics-of-greed/
It’s entitled ‘Killing the Goose that Laid the Golden Egg’, by Thomas Nast - the ‘Father of American Cartoon’. He was definitely anti Catholic and was no friend of the Irish. Although not as a people but those of them who Nast thought deserved both barrels of his anger. And his cartoons of blacks and, for example, Chinese, often portrayed them as the underdog, downtrodden and sometimes heroic.
And Christian slave owners portrayed Africans as ‘almost-but-not-quite-true’ men. Your point is?
Thanks for the info. Not very subtle, was he.
See the previous posts. The tentative claims by the real scientists are written in the subjunctive mode. The fanatical evolutionists on this thread, however, elevate what is offered as possible to “absolutely, undoubtedly” certain leaving all objectivity in their rear view mirror.
At the root of the utter nonsense that human beings can be subdivided into races is Darwinism.
No, it is not fact. That’s why it is called the theories of evolution. “Species” is a construct of the human mind.
The Church does not make technical judgements.
The Church teaches that evolution science does not explain the existence of the human being.
Racism has been around from a lot earlier than 1859. Didn’t the American Constitution count negro slaves as 3/5 of a person and not count Native Americans at all? That was subdividing into three races right there.
You seem to have a very shallow knowledge of history before 1859.
[…] the fierce and impious Saxons, a race hateful both to God and men […]
[…] the Picts and Scots, like worms which in the heat of the mid-day come forth from their holes, hastily land again from their canoes […] differing one from another in manners, but inspired with the same avidity for blood, and all more eager to shroud their villainous faces in bushy hair than to cover with decent clothing those parts of their body which required it. […]
St Gildas: De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae, C6th AD, tr. Giles.