From Darwin’s Descent of Man

[loco]

Loco, are you a Lutheran Protestant? I think you said once you were. If so, how do you reconcile your beliefs with the hatred-spewing founder of your faith?

No.

Besides, Luther became anti-Judaism toward the end of his life.  Anti-Judaism and Anti-Semitism are two different things.  Luther was against the religion, not the ethnic group.  And Luther wrote a lot of stuff throughout his life, but only wrote about Jews very little and only toward the end of his life.  His attitude toward Judaism was terrible, but he was not anti-Semitic.

[Deedee]

No

Well, okay but what is the point of it then?  You're pointing out the fallicies of a Victorian-age thinker who was no doubt greatly influenced by his class-based society, and probably was commenting on the squalor upper class Londoners occasionally glimpsed when they passed through the low rent part of town.

Beach Bum in his usual eye-rolly articulate fashion, made some kind of allusion to Hitler and it seems that's where the thread is going... i.e. evolutionists are bad, racist, politically incorrect people who inspire wars and human tragedy, whereas devout creationist people write only about all that is goodness and light.  Or have I misunderstood? If I have, what is it you are trying to underscore with your quote?

[Deedee]

No.

Besides, Luther became anti-Judaism toward the end of his life.  Anti-Judaism and Anti-Semitism are two different things.  Luther was against the religion, not the ethnic group.  And Luther wrote a lot of stuff throughout his life, but only wrote about Jews very little and only toward the end of his life.  His attitude toward Judaism was terrible, but he was not anti-Semitic.

I think it was more of a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of association.  As soon as he saw that the Jews weren't going to convert over to the "new" reform, he hated their guts openly. Besides, what does it matter when he spewed his rage?  It was written by the time Hitler blossomed into his role, and he made references to Luther in Mein Kampf, and elsewhere, often. 

First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly  and I myself was unaware of it  will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

Not so nice! Anyway, I only throw this out to illustrate what I said in my last post.  You'll find plenty of religious thinkers throughout history who have vomited the worst racist, misogynist bile imaginable.  And I know you're talking about auteurs and their published works here, but I wonder how many evolutionists have burned people at the stake?

[loco]

Well, okay but what is the point of it then?

I stated the point in my original thread, "Read/Discuss".  Just curious to see people's reaction/opinion when reading this passage from Darwin’s Descent of Man.

You're pointing out the fallicies of a Victorian-age thinker who was no doubt greatly influenced by his class-based society, and probably was commenting on the squalor upper class Londoners occasionally glimpsed when they passed through the low rent part of town.

No, but that's your reaction/opinion to the passage.  Thanks for sharing!  I mean it!    

Beach Bum in his usual eye-rolly articulate fashion, made some kind of allusion to Hitler and it seems that's where the thread is going... i.e. evolutionists are bad, racist, politically incorrect people who inspire wars and human tragedy, whereas devout creationist people write only about all that is goodness and light.  Or have I misunderstood? If I have, what is it you are trying to underscore with your quote?

Beach Bum likewise shared his reaction/opinion as did the others, and I appreciate it.  I won't speak for Beach Bum, but I doubt he meant all of what you said above.

[loco]

I think it was more of a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of association.  As soon as he saw that the Jews weren't going to convert over to the "new" reform, he hated their guts openly. Besides, what does it matter when he spewed his rage?  It was written by the time Hitler blossomed into his role, and he made references to Luther in Mein Kampf, and elsewhere, often. 

First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly  and I myself was unaware of it  will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

Not so nice! Anyway, I only throw this out to illustrate what I said in my last post.  You'll find plenty of religious thinkers throughout history who have vomited the worst racist, misogynist bile imaginable.  And I know you're talking about auteurs and their published works here, but I wonder how many evolutionists have burned people at the stake?

Yes, I'm aware, and it's terrible.  But I'm not Lutheran and Luther was not Jesus Christ.  He was a fallible man.  But wanting to force Jews to convert over to the new reformed Christianity like Luther wanted, and wanting to wipe out the Jews like Hitler wanted to are two very different things.

[OzmO]

Read/Discuss:

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus, the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as the part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without the deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence, we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage."  - Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

Spoken like a scientist viewing man as an experiment and devaluing the preciousness of each human life by comparing our species to animals.

Not surprising considering the age he was from.

[Deedee]

Yes, I'm aware, and it's terrible.  But I'm not Lutheran and Luther was not Jesus Christ.  He was a fallible man.  But wanting to force Jews to convert over to the new reformed Christianity like Luther wanted, and wanting to wipe out the Jews like Hitler wanted to are two very different things.

Um... that's not what we're talking about. Hitler was inspired by the religious Luther just as much as he was by the evolutionist Darwin. He twisted their words to suit his agenda. That's the point. And there were others as well.

[loco]

Um... that's not what we're talking about. Hitler was inspired by the religious Luther just as much as he was by the evolutionist Darwin. He twisted their words to suit his agenda. That's the point. And there were others as well.

I don't know.  Yes, Hitler twisted Luther's words to justify killing all Jews, though that's not what Luther said.  But when reading what Darwin wrote above, then reading about Hitler's actions, the holocaust, Nazism and the eugenic movement, any "twisting" of Darwin's words isn't really necessary.

[Deedee]

I stated the point in my original thread, "Read/Discuss".  Just curious to see people's reaction/opinion when reading this passage from Darwin’s Descent of Man.

No, but that's your reaction/opinion to the passage.  Thanks for sharing!  I mean it!    

Beach Bum likewise shared his reaction/opinion as did the others, and I appreciate it.  I won't speak for Beach Bum, but I doubt he meant all of what you said above.

I didn't mean he was directly commenting on the London unwashed. But like all of us, we're subjectively affected by the societies within which we live, as well as the scientific knowledge available to us.

I do think the commentary on this thread has headed in the direction I mentioned, but nothing wrong with that...and it's so easily refuted.  

[Deedee]

I don't know.  Yes, Hitler twisted Luther's words to justify killing all Jews, though that's not what Luther said.  But when reading what Darwin wrote above, then reading about Hitler's actions, the holocaust, Nazism and the eugenic movement, any "twisting" of Darwin's words isn't really necessary.

Where does Darwin say that people should be euthanized, or gassed, or murdered, in any way? You're really grasping here.  Darwin doesn't promote any violence whatsoever. There is not ONE word of it in that passage. All he really says is that he hopes imbeciles don't marry.  Yet in the passage above, and there are plenty more, Luther is talking about burning synagogues, razing houses, humiliating a people, driving them out of their country etc.  Hmmm... now THAT sounds familiar! 

[loco]

Where does Darwin say that people should be euthanized, or gassed, or murdered, in any way? You're really grasping here.  Darwin doesn't promote any violence whatsoever. There is not ONE word of it in that passage. All he really says is that he hopes imbeciles don't marry.  Yet in the passage above, and there are plenty more, Luther is talking about burning synagogues, razing houses, humiliating a people, driving them out of their country etc.  Hmmm... now THAT sounds familiar! 

Yes, what Luther wrote was terrible, but where does Luther say that people should be euthanized, or gassed, or murdered, in any way?

Darwin did not say that either.  He was not specific about the method by which to rid this world of "the weak kind":

"Thus, the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man."

"hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

"The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil."

"the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind"

"the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound"

"the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage."

[Deedee]

Yes, what Luther wrote was terrible, but where does Luther say that people should be euthanized, or gassed, or murdered, in any way?

Darwin did not say that either.  He was not specific about the method by which to rid this world of "the weak kind":

"Thus, the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man."

"hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

"The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil."

"the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind"

"the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound"

"the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage."

I'm really having trouble following you. 

You said Hitler got his ideas for mass murder, gassing, etc. from Darwin. I said that Darwin didn't propose violence of any kind. I also suggested that if anything, he might even have been MORE inspired by Luther who DID promote violence, including much of what Hitler did in fact set into motion.

You're quoting the Darwin passage completely out of context. He's saying that people would never think to breed inferior livestock but that we are morally obligated to save the wretched or inferior among us.  What's wrong with that? It's perfectly true. 

I was just giving you something to think about when you've obviously posted the Darwin passage to promote the idea that evolutionists and their theories have brought misery into this world. I counter that by saying the devout have caused far more.

[loco]

I'm really having trouble following you. 

You said Hitler got his ideas for mass murder, gassing, etc. from Darwin. I said that Darwin didn't propose violence of any kind. I also suggested that if anything, he might even have been MORE inspired by Luther who DID promote violence, including much of what Hitler did in fact set into motion.

You're quoting the Darwin passage completely out of context. He's saying that people would never think to breed inferior livestock but that we are morally obligated to save the wretched or inferior among us.  What's wrong with that? It's perfectly true. 

I was just giving you something to think about when you've obviously posted the Darwin passage to promote the idea that evolutionists and their theories have brought misery into this world. I counter that by saying the devout have caused far more.

Deedee, when did I say that?  You are confused.  Are you referring to this post? 

Are you not aware that Hitler himself was a huge fan of Darwin and justified his brutality against the Jews with Darwinism. He thought he was doing mankind a favour creating his Aryan super race.

Notice that isn't me.  That is Nordic Superman.  I noticed that earlier you quoted him, but addressed me instead.  I thought that was odd, but I figured maybe you decided to address both of us in the same post.     

By the way, I think Nordic Superman is an atheist, so the following would not apply to him:

it seems that's where the thread is going... i.e. evolutionists are bad, racist, politically incorrect people who inspire wars and human tragedy, whereas devout creationist people write only about all that is goodness and light.  Or have I misunderstood? If I have, what is it you are trying to underscore with your quote?

[Deedee]

Deedee, when did I say that?  You are confused.  Are you referring to this post? 

Well, it's very possible that I am confused. I am a Lutheran Protestant, so can you blame me, what with all the confusing messages concerning love and hatred?    However, seems you did say this:

Yeah, and while you are at it also give Darwin a history tutorial to let him know how he inspired Hitler to attempt to rule the world and to murder millions, reducing western Europe to ruins in the process.

Also tell Darwin how he inspired biologists to promote the eugenic movement, which led to the sterilization of tens of thousands of Americans against their will, many of whom would not be considered mentally handicapped today.

I understand your explanation of natural selection above, but there is no denying the impact Darwin's words had on these people.

And that's where I drew my conclusions. Maybe you were trying to take your thread in another direction and it veered toward Hitler accidentally?  That's why I asked.

Anyway, people are already planning their children with certain genetic strengths in mind... musical, or mathematical aptitude, for instance, so I don't much see the difference between that and what Darwin was musing and going on about.

And I did answer both you and NS in the same post.  I was trying not to be an annoying multiple poster.   

[MMC78]

Directly related to the conversation: The shifting moral Zeitgiest

[Dos Equis]

Beach Bum in his usual eye-rolly articulate fashion, made some kind of allusion to Hitler and it seems that's where the thread is going... i.e. evolutionists are bad, racist, politically incorrect people who inspire wars and human tragedy, whereas devout creationist people write only about all that is goodness and light.  Or have I misunderstood? If I have, what is it you are trying to underscore with your quote?

   Oh please.  The eye roll was in response to the following dumb comment:  "No... but you would know that already if you read real science books instead of creationist pamphlets..."

[Dos Equis]

I stated the point in my original thread, "Read/Discuss".  Just curious to see people's reaction/opinion when reading this passage from Darwin’s Descent of Man.

No, but that's your reaction/opinion to the passage.  Thanks for sharing!  I mean it!    

Beach Bum likewise shared his reaction/opinion as did the others, and I appreciate it.  I won't speak for Beach Bum, but I doubt he meant all of what you said above.

Correct.

[Hedgehog]

Loco, are you a Lutheran Protestant? I think you said once you were. If so, how do you reconcile your beliefs with the hatred-spewing founder of your faith?

Where in the Lutheran Church do you find anti-semitism?

I am asking you this, because the State Church of Sweden is Lutheran, and there is no large anti-semistic policy or tradition in that church.

And all of the Reformist Churches are based on Luther's choice to stand up against the Pope.

Even the Calvinists IMO.

[Deicide]

Hey, Trapezkerl!  We missed ya!  Welcome back!   

1. Jesus did not say that, but instead the king in a story that Jesus was telling is the one who says that.  Below is the complete passage.  Nice try, Trapezkerl!

2. Even if Jesus had really said that, it is not consistent with the Crusades.  The Crusades were not about Christians killing people because they did not want Jesus to be king.

3. I have never read nor heard anyone claim that Luke 19:12-27 inspired the Crusades or that the Crusaders used these Bible verses as an excuse to justify their actions.  If that is your claim, let's see some evidence.

The Crusades are not consistent with anything that Jesus ever said or taught.  Jesus said we must love our enemies and bless those who curse us.  By contrast, Hitler's actions, the holocaust, Nazism and the eugenic movement are all consistent with Darwin’s Descent of Man.

Luke 19:12-27 (New International Version)

12He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a]'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'

 14"But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'

 15"He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

 16"The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'

 17" 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'

 18"The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'

 19"His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'

 20"Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'

 22"His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'

 24"Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'

 25" 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'

 26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

The referee is not clear. In any event Hitler was far more inspired by centuries of Christian inspired anti-semitism than he was by Darwin.

[Nordic Superman]

The referee is not clear. In any event Hitler was far more inspired by centuries of Christian inspired anti-semitism than he was by Darwin.

Gotta disagree with this assertion.

[loco]

You're KIDDING?!!!    He did? Wow!  I thought he only quoted Martin Luther at length since he was such a huge fan, and held a real soft spot in his heart for the great reformer's virulent and all-consuming hatred for the Jews.

Yes, he did.  You thought wrong.  Hitler may have quoted Martin Luther, but he wasn't inspired by Luther.  Hitler was inspired by Darwin.
 

Hitler was inspired by the religious Luther just as much as he was by the evolutionist Darwin. He twisted their words to suit his agenda. That's the point. And there were others as well.

I disagree.  Yes, Hitler was inspired by Darwin, but Hitler was not inspired by Luther.  Twisting Luther's words in a futile attempt to turn German Lutherans against the Jews does not follow that Hitler was inspired by Luther.  Lutherans are not anti-smites and Hitler's attempts to turn them against the Jews failed.
 
Deedee, as a Lutheran, you must be familiar with Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the The Confessing Church, right?

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German Lutheran pastor and theologian, and a founding member of the Confessing Church.  In response to Hitler's treatment of the Jews, Bonhoeffer's faith eventually let him to become a participant in the German Resistance movement against Nazism.  He was involved in plots to assassinate Adolf Hitler.  He was arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and eventually hanged for helping Jews escape the Nazis.

The Confessing Church was a Christian resistance movement in Nazi Germany. The Confessing Church engaged in various forms of resistance, notably hiding Jews from the Nazi regime. Some of the leaders of the Confessing Church, such as Martin Niemöller were sent to concentration camps, and some died there.
 

I was just giving you something to think about when you've obviously posted the Darwin passage to promote the idea that evolutionists and their theories have brought misery into this world. I counter that by saying the devout have caused far more.

You are arriving at conclusions as to why I created this thread on your own.  You are assuming way too much about me. 

And though that is not what this thread is about, I do disagree when you say that "the devout" have caused far more misery.  Do you have any evidence to back that up?  Where did you get that?
 
Far more misery and death have been caused by non-religious people than by "the devout".  So I don't understand how you can say that the opposite is true.

[Deedee]

Where in the Lutheran Church do you find anti-semitism?

I am asking you this, because the State Church of Sweden is Lutheran, and there is no large anti-semistic policy or tradition in that church.

And all of the Reformist Churches are based on Luther's choice to stand up against the Pope.

Even the Calvinists IMO.

I was referring to its founder, Martin Luther.  He spoke quite openly about his hatred for Jews. I posted one quote above but there are many more to be googled.  Apparently Calvin was not such a great human being either.

[Deedee]

  Oh please.  The eye roll was in response to the following dumb comment:  "No... but you would know that already if you read real science books instead of creationist pamphlets..."

Okay that makes 4  in this thread. Are you unaware that this is your signature post reply?

The formal Victorian english is difficult to grasp but after reading it over 3 or 4 times the meaning of this portion of the Darwin quote should become clear:

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as the part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without the deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil.

Those are hardly the words of a genocidal racist.  For you, special -------> 

MMC78 made note of the shifting moral Zeitgeist and he has a very valid point about what is acceptabled, as well as accepted, public discourse depending on what time and place in history the discourse took place.

Further, during that era it was common for the mentally ill or mentally challanged to be referred to as imbeciles, and this is also how the American Christians who helped organize and wholeheartedly supported the eugenics program referred to these people as well.

In simple word-speak what Darwin said  is this:

Certain individuals, like schizophrenics and chronic alcoholics, to give two examples, have an increased chance of producing children with birth defects or inherited mental illness.  Morally of course we can't stand in the way of allowing such individuals to propegate, so the best we can do is hope that they would not.

Doesn't sound like Hitler's playbook to me. Where's the call to violence or eradication of a people? Many of the posters on this board, Christians included, say far worse on a daily basis.

[Deedee]

Yes, he did.  You thought wrong.  Hitler may have quoted Martin Luther, but he wasn't inspired by Luther.  Hitler was inspired by Darwin.
  
I disagree.  Yes, Hitler was inspired by Darwin, but Hitler was not inspired by Luther.  Twisting Luther's words in a futile attempt to turn German Lutherans against the Jews does not follow that Hitler was inspired by Luther.  Lutherans are not anti-smites and Hitler's attempts to turn them against the Jews failed.
 
Deedee, as a Lutheran, you must be familiar with Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the The Confessing Church, right?

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German Lutheran pastor and theologian, and a founding member of the Confessing Church.  In response to Hitler's treatment of the Jews, Bonhoeffer's faith eventually let him to become a participant in the German Resistance movement against Nazism.  He was involved in plots to assassinate Adolf Hitler.  He was arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and eventually hanged for helping Jews escape the Nazis.

The Confessing Church was a Christian resistance movement in Nazi Germany. The Confessing Church engaged in various forms of resistance, notably hiding Jews from the Nazi regime. Some of the leaders of the Confessing Church, such as Martin Niemöller were sent to concentration camps, and some died there.
  
You are arriving at conclusions as to why I created this thread on your own.  You are assuming way too much about me. 

And though that is not what this thread is about, I do disagree when you say that "the devout" have caused far more misery.  Do you have any evidence to back that up?  Where did you get that?
 
Far more misery and death have been caused by non-religious people than by "the devout".  So I don't understand how you can say that the opposite is true.

Hitler was inspired by a number of things. His failure as an artist, his sado-sexual weirdnesses, and as Trapezecurl mentioned, centuries of European anti-semitism.  He was inspired by the theory of evolution, as well as the words of religious thinkers and anti-semitic composers.

I just don't get the importance you place on this. Are you saying that because there is a possibility that someone in the distant future may take someone's words and turn them to achieve their own evil means, we should ban everything that might be a contributive factor.  You might as well burn down every library then. 

This is just silly. And pulling out the one Reader's Digest style, anecdotal story of a Protestant hero doesn't prove anything and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You needn't defend Lutherans to me. I was only speaking of one.   

As far as the devout creating more misery... Loco, go read a history book or two.  Holy wars, witch hunts, Catholics killing Protestants and vice-versa...burnings, torture, mutilation... you'll find far less material written by atheists calling for the execution of the religious than you will the opposite. And hmmm, I dunno, what's going on in the middle east today. Anything to do with religion?  BTW, I'm not criticizing.  Religion serves a great purpose in keeping our herds thinned. If we didn't have it the world would surely have been overrun by now and our survival endangered.

[Hedgehog]

Yes, he did.  You thought wrong.  Hitler may have quoted Martin Luther, but he wasn't inspired by Luther.  Hitler was inspired by Darwin.
 
I disagree.  Yes, Hitler was inspired by Darwin, but Hitler was not inspired by Luther.  Twisting Luther's words in a futile attempt to turn German Lutherans against the Jews does not follow that Hitler was inspired by Luther.  Lutherans are not anti-smites and Hitler's attempts to turn them against the Jews failed.

You could just as well claim that Hitler twisted the words of Darwin.