The churches’ sin was not in inspiring Hitler to commit his many crimes, but in not stopping him — the same sin that the churches are guilty of in the modern war against the Darwin doubters in the west today. Actually, what drove Hitler was not his putative Christianity, but rather the goal of implementing social Darwinism.
This author seems to be saying that churches ought to be "stopping Darwin doubters in the west" the same way they ought to have stopped Hitler.
Am I correct in my interpretation of this statement?
Who are the "Darwin doubters in the west today"?
And what means would have been justified in stopping Hitler?
Are those same means justified in stopping the "Darwin doubters"?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
For example, I find your uses of bold and multi-colored text to be obnoxious, infantile and condescending. However, this is an aesthetic judgment.
And yet you do not object to smilies. Go figure.
I'm very particular about what kind on inane things I like in text I'm reading. I admit this freely. :)
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo