← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Mr.Wilson
Thread ID: 8473 | Posts: 27 | Started: 2003-07-26
2003-07-26 17:45 | User Profile
A motion picture about the life of Martin Luther. [url=http://www.elca.org/Scriptlib/CO/ELCA_News/encArticleList.asp?a=2568&p=15]http://www.elca.org/Scriptlib/CO/ELCA_News...asp?a=2568&p=15[/url] [url=http://www.lutherthemovie.com/]http://www.lutherthemovie.com/[/url]
2003-07-26 20:08 | User Profile
Lofl.
Sure to stir it up between Catholics and good (non-Judeo-Xtian) Protestants.
We differ on Martin (Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa). And Luther pointed to some legitimate grievances, but he fractured the universality of the faith through his actions. From a non-theological viewpoint alone, this was disastrous. The loss of community can still be felt today.
BTW, wonder what he would have thought of today's Televangelists, and Noachidim?
At any rate, I declare, at the onset, my affinity and fellowship with my fellow brothers in the Protestant faiths, whose faith and acts are of iron and are the salt of the earth. God bless them, and my they convert their errant Prot brethren.
Catholics have much of the same work to do with our own.
2003-07-26 20:16 | User Profile
Put a sock in it, Roman Papist!
B) :D
2003-07-26 22:20 | User Profile
Put a sock in it, Roman Papist!
I do believe that was highly uncalled for Texas Dissident. I do agree with Campion Moore Boru that many of Luther's actions were unneccessary. I do admire many aspects of Luther's theology I should add.
The Church was already divided between the Catholic and Orthodox churches, Luther in many ways caused more division among Western Christians. I'll admit this is somewhat a fault of the Roman Catholic Church. As a [url=http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/eastfaq.html]Byzantine Catholic[/url] I know about how the Roman rite can be real pricks, as they often enforced Latin style rituals on Eastern Catholics(so-called "Latinization) which often drove and still in some ways does drives Eastern Catholics to the Orthodox Church. As the Eastern Catholic site I posted states "The irony is that this foolish attempt to enforce unity through conformity just leads to more disunity!"
What people don't realize is that there was dissent among many lower levels of the Catholic clergy against the corruption of the higher officials, yet they didn't break away.
Did any of you see the two hour documentary about Martin Luther on [url=http://www.pbs.org/empires/martinluther/]PBS[/url] a few weeks ago? I thought it was interesting.
2003-07-26 23:22 | User Profile
I do believe that was highly uncalled for Texas Dissident.
Perun,
Perhaps it is the language difference, I don't know. Campion and I go wayyyy back, so please know that he knows I was just joking.
2003-07-27 03:29 | User Profile
I did. It was very good, though of course, overly glossy. 'On the Jews and their Lies' wasn't mentioned once, and the fascinating anecdote of Luther conceiving the doctrine of 'justification by faith alone' whilst voiding his bowels was also, sadly, ignored.
Actually I do believe they did mention towards the end that Martin Luther was anti-semitic and gave one quote of his one the topic. But other than that, they didn't mention it.
** Perun, Perhaps it is the language difference, I don't know. Campion and I go wayyyy back, so please know that he knows I was just joking. **
Oh ok :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
2003-07-27 05:48 | User Profile
perun1201 and wintermute,
I saw the PBS documentary on Martin Luther, it was great. I remember the PBS program did talk about his anti-jewish writtings, but did not spend much time on as perun1201 said.
Rember he wrote the pro-Jweish book 'Jesus was a Jew' first, them he went out to meet the Jews in person and after getting to know them, he wrote 'On the Jews and their Lies.'
They have made a motion picture about the life of Martin Luther before.
Martin Luther (1953)
[url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00006JDUS/]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...l/-/B00006JDUS/[/url]
[url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005BJRH/]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...l/-/B00005BJRH/[/url]
2003-07-28 14:28 | User Profile
I saw the PBS documentary on Martin Luther, it was great. I remember the PBS program did talk about his anti-jewish writtings, but did not spend much time on as perun1201 said.
And what did I say? I said that mentioned that fact he was anti-semitic and gave one quote of his on the subject. Thats not much. They were mostly like
"Martin Luther was harsh on many peoples, among them the Jews." Then the actor playing Luther utters a at most two sentence quote condmning them.
Again, thats not much.
2003-07-29 03:09 | User Profile
TD:
I'll always save a space at the kneeler for ya, you heretic. Come home. No questions asked.
(Maybe just 40 lashes for penance sake. ) :P
I've never read the entirety of Luther's book on the subject, but I can tell you that such writings were rife throughout Christendom during this time. Do a little digging.
Look up the matter of Nicholas Donin for starters.
Of course, our Wotanic friends assure us that this was the nadir of Europe- when minds such as Aquinas, Copernicus, and Erasmus (token for you, TD ;) ) lit the Continent.
2003-07-29 05:29 | User Profile
**Finally, Copernicus.
I will expect everyone here to know, of course, that C postposed the publication of his books 'til death on account of his fear of Holy Mother Church. Also, audiences were somewhat limited by the exact same fear, so much so that the book did not become a public menace until seventy years later (as judged by its date of inclusion in the Index Prohibitorum). However much the Christian world attempted to stop the growth of knowledge may be the subject of some argument, but the source and exemplar of Copernicus' work cannot be questioned.**
Why would Copernicus have to be afraid of the church, when he himself was an ordained priest? Many theologians including the Pope himself were interested in his theories. They were against "C" advocating them as pure fact as opposed to theory. Since there was no real way to provide empirical evidence of this theory at the time, this was scientifically sound.
Don't even get me started as to how Biblical Literalists, of the kind who have been a constant plague for two thousand years, fought tooth and nail against both the spherical earth, and the Copernican (Aristarchian?) system.
I know these tyes exist and they give Christianity a bad name. They should realize that while scripture maybe infallible, human intrepatation of it is not. Humans can and do make mistakes when interpreting the holy bible.
2003-07-30 03:02 | User Profile
I've moved this post from the "Christianity" section.
Well, I have a profound loathing of the three Abrahamic belief-systems; as a matter of fact, the only public figure that even comes close to my unequivocal hatred of the three Semitic religions is the Anglo-American journalist Christopher Hitchens.
My specific quarrel with Christianity is that it's extremely harmful to the White race (see [url=http://www.amren.com/masterx.htm)]http://www.amren.com/masterx.htm)[/url] and that it has set us (Europeans) back scientifically by hundreds of years. Here's a post that I wrote, in a slightly different context, explaining what I mean:
Since the advent of the Christianity a deep rift has existed between science and religion (a rift that didnââ¬â¢t exist during Greco-Roman times). Outspoken scientists like Copernicus were persecuted by the Catholic Church. As a matter of fact, Christianity has always persecuted science. The Greco-Romans (and their vague, tolerant, sunny polytheism. BTW, Julian the Apostate is my all-time favourite historical figure, see [url=http://www.juliansociety.org)]http://www.juliansociety.org)[/url] never claimed to have a monopoly on ââ¬Åtruthââ¬Â; it was the Churchââ¬â¢s monopoly on the said ââ¬Åtruthââ¬Â that ultimately threatened academic enlightenment around the world. This point is exceedingly well demonstrated by Bertrand Russellââ¬â¢s masterpiece ââ¬ÅReligion and Scienceââ¬Â.
Greco-Romans (unlike Christians) werenââ¬â¢t in the habit of persecuting anyone for their scientific speculations and discoveries; and, most importantly, they didnââ¬â¢t claim to be in the possession of a Holy Book, that contained the unerring Word of God:
Russell writes: ââ¬ÅThe theory which we call Copernican [Copernicus's De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium was placed by the Catholic Church on the Index of Forbidden Books. F.B.], although it appeared with all the force of novelty in the sixteenth century, had in fact been invented by the Greeks, whose competence in astronomy was very great. It was advocated by the Pythagorean school, who attributed it, probably without historical truth to their founder Pythagoras. The first astronomer who is known definitely to have taught that the earth moves was Aristarchus of Samos, who lived in the third century B.C. ââ¬Â¦He invented a theoretically valid method of discovering the relative distances of the sun and moon, though through errors of observation his result was far from correctââ¬Â¦
The Greeks had great skill in geometry, which enabled them to arrive at scientific demonstration in certain matters. They knew the cause of the earthââ¬â¢s shadow on the moon they inferred that the earth is a sphere. Eratosthenes, who was slightly later than Aristarchus, discovered how to estimate the size of the earthââ¬Â¦.
These lucky men of science lived in an age when Christian bigots had no influence on governments.
The Catholic Inquisition (see
[url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm;]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm;[/url]
[url=http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...hapter_23.html)]http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...hapter_23.html)[/url] hounded, and murdered, scientists, until it was finally abolished in 1820.
In the case of Galileo, to take a well-known example, the Catholic Church took up astronomy, and arrived, by deduction from certain texts of Scripture, at two important truths:
ââ¬ÅThe first proposition, that the sun is the centre and does not revolve about the earth, is foolish, absurd, false in theology, and heretical, because expressly contrary to Holy Scriptureââ¬Â¦The second proposition, that the earth is not the centre, but revolves about the sun, is absurd, false in philosophy, and, from a theological point of view at least, opposed to the truth faith.ââ¬Â
As to the situation in the US, well, the Catholic Church was never in a dominant position and, consequently, has not been much of a threat to scientific discoveries. Although, the ââ¬Åcontroversyââ¬Â surrounding the teaching of Evolution in public schools still rages on in some American states. The debate over genetic engineering, stem cell research, etc., etc., etc., is very much driven by religious (i.e., Christian) concerns. Hence, I would argue that even in the US scientific progress has been, and continues to be, hampered by the Christian abomination.
If you want to read more on how Christianity has impeded (and impedes) scientific progress, please read
[url=http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...vilization.html]http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...vilization.html[/url]
On the incompatibility of science and Christianity, please read [url=http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Incompa...patibility.html]http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Incompa...patibility.html[/url]
On the warfare between science and Christianity, please read
[url=http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...drew_White.html]http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...drew_White.html[/url]
2003-07-30 03:34 | User Profile
Friedrich Braun, I must say this is historical nonsense. If you hate christianity, fine, but please base it on true historical data!
Since the advent of the Christianity a deep rift has existed between science and religion (a rift that didnââ¬â¢t exist during Greco-Roman times). **
Then why is it that most of Europe's great scientific minds during the Middle Ages were men of the Church? St. Augustine was a major influence on scientific research during this era that later helped Europe move out of the Dark Ages. It was Irish monks that helped preserve many ancient manuscripts while most of Europe's library were destroyed. Many historians admit that without the efforts of these Irish monks, almost any book written before 1000 AD would've been lost forever. Show a little gratitude, much of what we know of Greco-Roman paganism comes from these sources saved by the Irish monks(including Pagan philosophy).
** Outspoken scientists like Copernicus were persecuted by the Catholic Church.**
Copernicus was an ordained priest. He was never persecuted by the Catholic Church. In fact Pope Leo X (1513-1521) showed great interest in Copernicus's writings and wanted to see his theories advanced. The Church raised no objections to his revolutionary hypothesis, as long as it was represented as theory, not undisputed fact. This was largely because there was no real way to provide empirical evidence to support this claim. Since the Church is infallible on spiritual matters, its not going to throw its support to any crackpot theory without substantial evidence. In 1615, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine noted that if the Copernican theory was ever proven then it would be necessary to re-think the interpretation of certain Scriptural passages.
** As a matter of fact, Christianity has always persecuted science.**
Not True. If this was true why did Pope Gregory XIII for example show such great support in the development of modern astronomy that eventually led to the creation of Gregorian calander to replace the old Julian one. The Gregorian calander is so accurate it is still in use today. This is only one example of the church's achievements in scientific research.
** The Catholic Inquisition hounded, and murdered, scientists, until it was finally abolished in 1820. **
Oh yes in like 300 years about 2000 people were killed throughout all of Europe. That's around 3 a year. Only 2% of people convicted by the Inquistion were ever executed and most spent at most 3-10 years in jail(but the usual sentence was a few months). Yet even most of these people spent their sentences under house arrest, in hospitals, or in monastaries. Some juristidictions even allowed the convicted to move freely during the day and only required to return at night.
Many historians, including atheist Henry Kamen, have concluded that much about the Inquistion was highly overblown out of proportion. This is backed by the findings of scholars researching the Vatican archives. They found that in incidents were popularly believed 1000 people were at the stack only 10 people were actually burned.
**In the case of Galileo, to take a well-known example, the Catholic Church took up astronomy, and arrived, by deduction from certain texts of Scripture, at two important truths:ââ¬ÅThe first proposition, that the sun is the centre and does not revolve about the earth, is foolish, absurd, false in theology, and heretical, because expressly contrary to Holy Scriptureââ¬Â¦The second proposition, that the earth is not the centre, but revolves about the sun, is absurd, false in philosophy, and, from a theological point of view at least, opposed to the truth faith.ââ¬Â **
It should be noted that Galileo was as much condemned by fellow Scientists as he ever was by theologians. Plus the theologians judging Galileo were schooled in the theories of Ptolemy, who held that the Sun revolved around the Earth. So the judgement was as much based on accepted scientific theories of the day as it ever was on theology. Plus it should be noted that Galileo himself was a devout catholic throughout his life and never once argued that his scientific theories went against Church doctrine or the Bible. One of his daughters even became a nun later in life.
The condemnation had little to do with defining doctrine. It was the finding of one canonical office, not a determination by the Church, that set out a clear doctrinal interpretation.
If there is a war between science and religion, it is not a battle based on any denial from the Church of the need for scientific progress. Rather, it is from certain segments of the scientific community that have adopted a religion of science that scornfully disregards religious faith. It is far more common today for certain scientists to declare war on faith, than faith to object to science and its search for truth.
I don't know how many times I refuted these arguments on this forum alone!
2003-07-30 06:52 | User Profile
I've moved this post from the "Christianity" section.
Well, I have a profound loathing of the three Abrahamic belief-systems; as a matter of fact, the only public figure that even comes close to my unequivocal hatred of the three Semitic religions is the Anglo-American journalist Christopher Hitchens.
Friedrich, glad you found another place to put your original science piece post. I see you didn't see fit to transfer this particular post here, a pity since it is so appropriate to place your opinions on Protestantism underneath the great Martin Luther. Of course your opinions on Judaism are great too, just fine if they don't give it up, just as long as they don't proselytize. I won't even get into the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism (basically the difference between OT and NT worship), because I can already see how you'd take offense at that.
After all I can already see what you're real beef with Martin Luther was. He was so antisemitic.
And of course it figures that you would have no idea of the positive role of Christianity in science. That's something you'd never learn in good old ADL approved school curriculums. Which you sound you'd be pergfectly comfortable in writing.
Maybe we could get into the real difference betwee
**Winterlude,
That's why I favour the more pagan Catholicism over the more Judaic Protestantism.
My main concern is with the survival of the White race; the reason I focus on Christianity is because it's a belief-system harmful (deadly) to Whites.
I don't care what happens to Arabs, Jews, Africans, etc. They can keep their wretched, primitive Middle Eastern mythologies if they want. With the caveat that they leave our countries, and don't proselytise (at least not in the West).
-FB
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=9809&st=0&#entry53497]The Moral Superiority of Roman-Paganism[/url]**
2003-07-30 07:27 | User Profile
*and that it has set us (Europeans) back scientifically by hundreds of years. *
What set the Western Europeans back hundreds of years wasn't the Church but, in part, the extreme scientific ignorance of the Germanic peoples who conquered the Western half of the Empire. The other half of the equation is nature of Classical science itself. While the Greeks (and to a lesser extent the Romans) tendered vastly superior scientific models, no one felt they should be bothered by actually testing them. Science in the classical world was synonomous with idle speculation. The survival of scientific theories, in general, was directly related to the popularity of the philosopher involved. Aristotle (or rather Aristotle's post humus groupies) did more damage to science than all of the popes combined.
Russell was a second rate mind. He attributed any and all loss of useful science to Christianity when almost all of the theories he lists were dead and had been openly ridiculed by other "scientists" centuries before Constantine came to the throne. In some cases, the theories only survived in attacks levied against them in the writings of other classical scientists. The Church was defending classical knowledge as was bequethed to them by the late Roman empire.
Julian the Apostate is my all-time favourite historical figure
I do like some of Julian's quotes, to wit:
"I too shall build and populate, by my efforts, after I successfully conclude my war against the Persians, the holy city of Jerusalem, which for many years you have yearned to see settled by yourselves, and together with you I shall give glory to the very great God." - Julian the Apostate to the Jews.
What an inspiration for the White race! :rolleyes:
2003-09-30 12:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wintermute]
From early reviews, I think we should be expecting straightforward hagiography. Holy Mother Church, led by Darth Vader and deploying legions of stormtroopers, will be resisted by Luther and his saintlike band of followers. I understand that the Church's 'Deathstar' (justification by works) will be blown up real good at the end of the movie.
Wintermute
P.S. I don't know if this counts as an important thread, but the tags do seem a little off.[/QUOTE]
The movie was a bit PC, ie they made no mention of the fact that Luther was anti-semitic. Although I was impressed with that scene where Luther defends the "Greek Christians"(ie Eastern Christians) in the beginning of the movie and how when writing the new Bible in German he relies and several Greek Chrisitan texts. I thought Luther was rather ignorant of the Eastern church?
2003-09-30 22:16 | User Profile
Thought:
In some historical contexts religion may very well have been tied to socially and scientifically progressive movements. Unfortunately, religion (i.e., Christianity) doesn't work well within the 21st century American context. For e.g., a clear majority of the American public supports the idiocy of Creationism and obscurantist social philosophies which are intimately tied into their religious/Christian culture. In sum, itââ¬â¢s become rather difficult to support religion for Americans without indirectly supporting these religious/Christian traditions as well, because these traditions are a part of American religious culture. Therefore, I support abolishing these structures in favour of secularism.
2003-10-01 02:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]Thought:
In some historical contexts religion may very well have been tied to socially and scientifically progressive movements. Unfortunately, religion (i.e., Christianity) doesn't work well within the 21st century American context. For e.g., a clear majority of the American public supports the idiocy of Creationism and obscurantist social philosophies which are intimately tied into their religious/Christian culture. In sum, it’s become rather difficult to support religion for Americans without indirectly supporting these religious/Christian traditions as well, because these traditions are a part of American religious culture. Therefore, I support abolishing these structures in favour of secularism.[/QUOTE]
What does this have to do with the movie "Luther"?
And it should be noted that the Book of Genesis does not contradict most scientific theories, since Darwin's theories never specifiy who/what created the first beings. Even the Big Bang theory is well within scripture, for scriptures states that there was nothing in the universe and then creation began. Well, so does the Big Bang theory. Now many Evengical Protestants believe in a literal interpretation of Genisis, which often results in humorous and ridiculas arguments.
As for abolishing religion. You don't seem to understand the important social aspects of religion. It help unites and brings societies together. Religions help define what is right and wrong in the world. And it gives people a sense of duty and devotion. A purely secularist society simply cannot exist, for secularism cannot fufill any of those tasks. Religions and myths are important to any society. Even the atheistic Communist regimes had to replace Christian myth with Communist myths. In the recent A&E movie "Napoleon", Napoleon talks to the Pope and saids to him "Man can live without God, but he cannot live without religion."
Thus there is something eternal in religion which is destined to survive all the particulas symbols in which religious thought has successfully enveloped itself. There ca be no society which does not feel the need of upholding and reaffirming at regular intervals the collective sentiments and collective ideas which make up its unity and its personality. --Durkheim 1915:427
2003-10-01 03:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201] As for abolishing religion. You don't seem to understand the important social aspects of religion. It help unites and brings societies together. Religions help define what is right and wrong in the world. And it gives people a sense of duty and devotion. A purely secularist society simply cannot exist, for secularism cannot fufill any of those tasks. Religions and myths are important to any society. Even the atheistic Communist regimes had to replace Christian myth with Communist myths. In the recent A&E movie "Napoleon", Napoleon talks to the Pope and saids to him "Man can live without God, but he cannot live without religion." [/QUOTE]
Wrong. The most recent studies coming from Japan (a highly successful and orderly society) indicate that only 6 % of the Japanese population identifies itself as religious "believers".
Scandinavia has comparable statistics.
Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, much of East Asia (with China being officially atheist) are not far behind.
The West (with the puzzling exeption of the US) is leaving Christianity in a hurry. This process in unstoppable and will only increase its pace in the future.
So yes, secularist societies can function very well, thank you.
2003-10-01 03:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun] Wrong. The most recent studies coming from Japan (a highly successful and orderly society) indicate that only 6 % of the Japanese population identifies itself as religious "believers".
Their orderly virtues still stem from Buddhist and Shinto origins, ie religion!
Scandinavia has comparable statistics.
Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, much of East Asia (with China being officially atheist) are not far behind.
Yes all countries with large amounts of cultural marxism prevalant in their societies. Not a good thing to glorify. Western Europe, yup they're about ready to surrender soverignity to the EU. Do I need mention the low birth rates in these countries(except East Asia)? Secularism also seems to followed by low birth rates.
The West (with the puzzling exeption of the US) is leaving Christianity in a hurry. This process in unstoppable and will only increase its pace in the future.
:yawn: I always like it when people talk about how things are "inevitable" and "unstoppable". Now unless the reconversion of Europe to christianity violates the physical laws of nature, its not "impossible". Besides theres a whole host things that were "inevitable" and "unstoppable" in the past that never came about. So don't get cocky and act like you have some crystal ball or something(which in a way would violate your secularist beliefs). You're not Nostradamus.
So yes, secularist societies can function very well, thank you.[/QUOTE]
If that's what you call functional societies, god help us when a disfunctional society comes around.
Man you must hate me or something ;)
2003-10-01 03:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]perun1201 and wintermute,
Rember he wrote the pro-Jweish book 'Jesus was a Jew' first, them he went out to meet the Jews in person and after getting to know them, he wrote 'On the Jews and their Lies.'
[/QUOTE]
Not only getting to know them, but reading the Talmud in Hebrew. What is that famous bit about Jesus boiling in xxx and xxx. That couldn't have gone down overly well with Luther.
2003-10-01 03:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]Their orderly virtues still stem from Buddhist and Shinto origins, ie religion!
No. No. No.
Please read some Rushton, among others.
The success of those societies has everything to do with their respective genotypes, and not the wack mysticism of Shinto .
(I like you, Perun! :yes: )
2003-10-01 06:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun] No. No. No.
Please read some Rushton, among others.
The success of those societies has everything to do with their respective genotypes, and not the wack mysticism of Shinto .
:huh: Ok?
Also with the 6% thing, I forgot to add something. The way East Asians approach religion is far different than the Western approach. So from a purely western perspective, yes 6% could be religious. East Asians(Japanese, Chinese, etc.) have always been very tolerant when it came to religion. A devout Buddhist could easily worship in a Taoist temple and not feel shame. A Shintoist can get married in a Buddhist temple, and a that would not make him a Buddhist. So given this typical attitude of East Asians, then yes I could believe that 6% are "religious" but still doesn't diminish the influence of religion.
(I like you, Perun! :yes: )[/QUOTE]
I guess you must find me sexy or something, although sorry I'm not gay. :pimp: :lol:
2003-10-01 16:01 | User Profile
You've heard of Rushton, right?
[url]http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no1/jpr-taxonomic.html[/url]
Is Race A Valid Taxonomic Construct?
J. Philippe Rushton
This essay is Professor Rushtonââ¬â¢s latest ââ¬ÅStatement on Race.ââ¬Â It updates the research in his book Race, Evolution, and Behavior (3rd edition, 2000), which contains over 1,000 references to the literature. Over the years egalitarians have questioned the taxonomic classification of race in terms of its empirical value and utility. Notwithstanding these criticisms which seek to undermine the legitimacy of race as a scientific concept, the answer to the question posed in the title of this paper is ââ¬Åyes.ââ¬Â If the concept of race didnââ¬â¢t exist, science would have to invent it (and did)! Race is a valid taxonomic construct because it allows us to make predictions about peopleââ¬â¢s behavior, especially at the group level.
In science, a concept is useful if it groups facts so that general laws and conclusions can be drawn from them. Predictions can be made using the taxonomic category of race because, on average, the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans are similar to each other and different from White Americans, Germans, and Russians, who are similar to each other and different from Black Americans, Haitians, and sub-Saharan Africans. Predictability is the criterion by which the value of a hypothetical construct like race is evaluated. As I will show, race is highly predictive.
For the past 20 years my research has focused on differences between the three major races, commonly termed Orientals (East Asians, Mongoloids), Whites (Europeans, Caucasoids), and Blacks (Africans, Negroids). Roughly speaking, Orientals are those who have most of their ancestors from East Asia. Whites have most of their ancestors from Europe. And Blacks have most of their ancestors from sub-Saharan Africa. In the main, I have not addressed the many other groups outside of these three major races, or sub-groups within the three major races, though they are of interest as well.
What I've found is that in brain size, intelligence, temperament, sexual behavior, fertility, growth rate, life span, crime, and family stability, Orientals, as a group, consistently fall at one end of the spectrum, Blacks fall at the other end, and Whites fall in between. On average, Orientals are slower to mature, less fertile, and less sexually active, and have larger brains and higher IQ scores. Blacks are at the opposite end in each of these areas. Whites fall in the middle, often close to Orientals (see Chart 1).
Of course, these three-way racial differences are averages. Individuals are individuals. However, I've found that this three-way pattern is consistently true over time and across nations. That the same three-way racial pattern occurs repeatedly on some 60 different biological and behavioral variables is profoundly interesting and shows that race is more than ââ¬Åjust skin deep.ââ¬Â The international data come from the World Health Organization, the United Nations, and Interpol. Recently, I even traveled to South Africa to collect new IQ data.
Let's start with the biological differences in sports, which is something almost everyone observes. Jon Entine's recent book Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We Are Afraid to Talk About It, addresses the old cliché that "White men can't jump" (and the new one that Oriental men jump even less well). Entine shows that in sports, it is Black men and women who can sky! And yet, as the data also show, it is mainly Blacks of West African descent who excel at running over short distances, while Blacks of East African descent ââ¬â from Kenya and Ethiopia ââ¬â excel at marathon running over long distances. These differences between East and West Africans show that taking an average can sometimes gloss over important distinctions. Still, Blacks from both East and West Africa excel at one or another kind of running. In sports, Blacks as a group, have a genetic advantage.
It is interesting to know that race differences show up early in life. Black babies are born a week earlier than White babies, yet they mature faster as measured by bone development. By age five or six, Black children excel in the dash, the long jump, and the high jump, all of which require a short burst of power. By the teenage years, Blacks have faster reflexes, as in the famous knee-jerk response.
Blacks also have from 3 to 19% more of the sex hormone testosterone than Whites or Orientals. This means more explosive energy, which gives Blacks the edge in sports like boxing, basketball, football, and sprinting.
Why is it taboo to say that Blacks are on average better at sports? Because the hormones that give Blacks the edge in sports also make them more masculine in general. They are physically more active in school, and this can sometimes get them into trouble or even lead to their being diagnosed as hyperactive.
So the next question is, ââ¬ÅWhy do East Asians and Whites and have wider hips than Blacks, and so make poorer runners?ââ¬Â The answer is that they give birth to larger brained babies. During evolution, as the head size of newborns increased, women had to have a wider pelvis. Orientals average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites, and Whites average a very large 5 cubic inches more cranial capacity than Blacks.
Some people are surprised to hear that the races differ in brain size. And they wonder how convincing the evidence is that brain size is related to intelligence. In fact, dozens of studies, including those based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging, have demonstrated the relation between brain size and intelligence.
Race differences in brain size have been demonstrated using four different methods: (1) magnetic resonance imaging, (2) brain weight at autopsy, (3) endocranial volume, and (4) external head measurements. These data are summarized in Chart 2 which presents the brain size averages across the four measurement techniques and also, where possible, corrected for body size. Orientals averaged 1,364 cm3, Whites averaged 1,347 cm3, and Blacks averaged 1,267 cm3. Naturally the averages vary between samples and the races do overlap. But the results from different methods on different samples, measured from the 1840s to the 1990s, show the same strong pattern.
The racial differences in brain size show up at birth. One study of my own, published in the 1997 issue of the journal Intelligence, was carried out using the resources of the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke (NINCDS) in Bethesda, Maryland. In it, I analyzed data from the enormous Collaborative Perinatal Project, which took head circumference measures and IQ scores from over 50,000 children followed from birth to seven years. The Oriental children averaged larger head circumferences than did the White children at birth, four months, one year, and seven years; the White children averaged larger head circumferences than did the Black children (see Chart 3).
I published several other studies during the 1990s, also in Intelligence, confirming the racial differences in brain size. In one study, I (1991) analyzed data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and found the mean cranial capacity for East Asians was 1,460 cm3, and for Europeans it was 1,446 cm3. From a stratified random sample of 6,325 U.S. Army personnel, I (1992) calculated average cranial capacities for Asians, Whites, and Blacks, respectively, of 1,416 cm3, 1,380 cm3, and 1,359 cm3. (I also found that officers averaged 1,393 cm3 while enlisted personnel averaged 1,375 cm3.) From a compilation made by the International Labour Office in Geneva of tens of thousands of people from around the world, I (1994) found that samples from the Pacific Rim, Europe, and Africa averaged cranial capacities, respectively, of 1,308 cm3, 1,297 cm3, and 1,241 cm3. Travis Osborne and I (1995) published a paper showing that brain size was about 50% heritable for both Blacks and Whites using data from the Georgia Twin Study based on 236 pairs of Black and White adolescent twins. And once again we found Whites averaged greater cranial capacity than Blacks.
Since one cubic inch of brain matter contains millions of brain cells and hundreds of millions of nerve connections, brain size helps to explain why the races differ in IQ. On standardized IQ tests, hundreds of studies show the three-way pattern. Orientals average slightly ahead of Whites on such tests and Whites average substantially ahead of Blacks. Most IQ tests have an average score of 100, with a ââ¬Ånormalââ¬Â range from 85 to 115. Around the world, Whites average an IQ of about 100, Orientals an IQ of about 104, and Blacks in Britain, the Caribbean, and the U.S. average lower IQs -- about 85. The lowest average IQs are found for sub-Saharan Africans ââ¬â around 70 (see Chart 4). Like the other data sets in this essay, these are reviewed in my book Race, Evolution, and Behavior. An even more recent book on the topic is by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, IQ and the Wealth of Nations.
...
[QUOTE=perun1201]:huh: Ok?
Also with the 6% thing, I forgot to add something. The way East Asians approach religion is far different than the Western approach. So from a purely western perspective, yes 6% could be religious. East Asians(Japanese, Chinese, etc.) have always been very tolerant when it came to religion. A devout Buddhist could easily worship in a Taoist temple and not feel shame. A Shintoist can get married in a Buddhist temple, and a that would not make him a Buddhist. So given this typical attitude of East Asians, then yes I could believe that 6% are "religious" but still doesn't diminish the influence of religion.
I guess you must find me sexy or something, although sorry I'm not gay. :pimp: :lol:[/QUOTE]
2003-10-01 16:20 | User Profile
I have respect for Luther and the protestant movement. The Catholic church need badly to be reformed. Ofcourse, I am Lutheran by birth; so I'll probably go see this movie. If it is indeed entertaining, though that is just what it is, and I don't expect historical accuracy. I hope the portray his dislike for "the chosen." :D
2003-10-01 16:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ritter] I hope the portray his dislike for "the chosen." :D[/QUOTE]
Not likely.
A PBS special on Luther skipped his violent criticism of Jews, for e.g.
We're talking about Jew Hollywood; the Jews panick because Gibson might tell the story of the Passion as it is written in the Gospels -- he's been getting death threats. So, I doubt that you'll see anything even rempotely critical of the Special People coming from the Jew controlled Hollywood.
2003-10-01 17:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ritter]I have respect for Luther and the protestant movement. The Catholic church need badly to be reformed. Ofcourse, I am Lutheran by birth; so I'll probably go see this movie. If it is indeed entertaining, though that is just what it is, and I don't expect historical accuracy. I hope the portray his dislike for "the chosen." :D[/QUOTE]
I already said that there's no mention of Luther's anti-semitism in the film. So you're going to be disappointed. :cry:
2003-10-01 18:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]I already said that there's no mention of Luther's anti-semitism in the film. So you're going to be disappointed. :cry:[/QUOTE]
Oh Hirnfurz!
:bag: