The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity?

Is it legitimate to condemn religion for historical atrocities? First we had better examine the facts.

I got a call from a gentleman from San Francisco who was exercised about Christian missionaries going into foreign lands. Then he started talking about not only the destruction of indigenous beliefs, but also the destruction of missionaries. That's what he wanted to see happen. He also said that Christians and religious groups are responsible for the greatest massacres of history. It turns out he was quite supportive of Wicca and indigenous religions which worship the Mother Earth force, Gaia. This is essentially the basic foundation for witchcraft.

The assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them.

But a couple of the things that he said were a challenge to me. Not only did he assert that historically missionaries have destroyed cultures and indigenous religions at the point of a gun, but also Christians and religion were responsible for most of the bloodshed in the world, or the great majority of it. I've heard this claim before. I wanted to respond with more detail because I'm sure you've heard these things as well. I have a tactic that I employ in situations like this that is called "Just the Facts, Ma'am." In other words, there are times when you're faced with objections to Christianity or your point of view that really fail with an accurate assessment of the facts. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them.

The assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. The greatest atrocities committed against man were done in the name of God.

Before I get to the particular facts, there is more than just a factual problem here. There is a theoretical problem as well and I tried to make the point that we must distinguish between what an individual or group of people do and what the code that they allegedly follow actually asserts. The fact is that there are people who do things consistently that are inconsistent with the code that they allegedly follow. But often times when that happens, especially where religion is concerned, the finger is pointed not at the individual who is choosing to do something barbaric, but at the code he claims to represent. The only time it's legitimate to point to the code as the source of barbarism is if the code is, in fact, the source of barbarism. People object to a religion that used barbaric means to spread the faith. But one can only use that as an objection against the religion if it's the religion itself that asserts that one must do it this way, as opposed to people who try to promote the spread of the religion in a forceful fashion in contradiction to what the religion actually teaches.

It's my understanding that much of Islam has been spread by the edge of the sword. That isn't because Muslim advocates were particularly violent. It's because their religion actually advocates this kind of thing. The difference between that and Christianity is that when Christianity was spread by the edge of the sword it was done so in contradistinction to the actually teachings of Christianity. This is when individual people who claim to be Christians actually did things that were inconsistent with their faith.

I've had some people that have told me when I've brought this up, "That's not a fair defense. You can't simply say that those people who committed the Crusades or the Inquisition or the witch burnings weren't real Christians. That's illegitimate." My response is, why? We know what a real Christian is. A real Christian is someone who believes particular things and lives a particular kind of lifestyle. John makes it clear that those who consistently live unrighteously are ipso facto by definition not part of the faith. So why is it illegitimate for me to look at people who claim to be Christians, yet live unrighteous lives, and promote genocide to say that these people aren't living consistently with the text, therefore you can't really call them Christians. I think that's legitimate.

It's not fair or reasonable to fault the Bible when the person who's waving the sword is doing things that are contradictory to what the Bible teaches.

For example, no one would fault the Hippocratic Oath, which is a very rigid standard of conduct for physicians, just because there are doctors who don't keep it. We wouldn't say there's something wrong with the oath, the code that they allegedly follow. We'd say there was something wrong with the individuals who don't live up to the ideals of that code. That is the case frequently where people waving the Bible in one hand are also waving a bloody sword in the other. The two are inconsistent. So it's not fair or reasonable to fault the Bible when the person who's waving the sword is doing things that are contradictory to what the Bible teaches ought to be done. So that's the first important thing to remember when you face an objection like this. Distinguish between what a person does and what the code they claim to follow actually asserts. Christianity is one thing, and if we're going to fault Christianity we must fault its teachings and not fault it because there are people who say they are Christians but then live a life that is totally morally divergent from what Christianity actually teaches.

As I said earlier, this kind of objection falls when you employ a tactic I call "Just the Facts, Ma'am," and I'd like to give you some of those facts. My assertion as I responded to the gentleman who called last week was simply this: it is true that there are Christians who do evil things. Even take people's lives. This is an indication that these people aren't truly Christians, but it may be true also that people with the right heart, but the wrong head do things that are inappropriate, like I think might have been the case in the Salem Witch Trials.

My basic case is that religion doesn't promote this kind of thing; it's the exception to the rule. The rule actually is that when we remove God from the equation, when we act and live as if we have no one to answer to but ourselves, and if there is no God, then the rule of law is social Darwinism-- the strong rule the weak. We'll find that, quite to the contrary, it is not Christianity and the belief in the God of the Bible that results in carnage and genocide. But it's when people reject the God of the Bible that we are most vulnerable to those kinds of things that we see in history that are the radical and gross destruction of human lives.

Let's take the Salem Witchcraft Trials. Apparently, between June and September of 1692 five men and fourteen women were eventually convicted and hanged because English law called for the death penalty for witchcraft (which, incidentally, was the same as the Old Testament). During this time there were over 150 others that were imprisoned. Things finally ended in September 1692 when Governor William Phipps dissolved the court because his wife had been accused. He said enough of this insanity. It was the colony's leading minister, by the way, who finally ended the witch hunt in 1693 and those that remained in prison were released. The judge that was presiding over the trials publicly confessed his guilt in 1697. By the way , it's interesting to note that this particular judge was very concerned about the plight of the American Indian and was opposed to slavery. These are views that don't sit well with the common caricature of the radical Puritans in the witch hunt. In 1711 the colony's legislatures made reparation to the heirs of the victims. They annulled the convictions.

I guess the point is that there was a witch hunt. It was based on theological reasons, but it wasn't to the extent that is usually claimed. I think last week the caller said it was millions and millions that were burned at the stake as witches. That certainly wasn't the case in this country. It seemed that the witch hunt was a result of theological misapplication and the people who were involved were penitent. The whole witch hunt lasted only a year. Sixteen people were hanged in New England for witchcraft prior to 1692. In the 1692 witch hunt nineteen were executed. So you've got thirty-five people. One hundred fifty imprisoned. This is not at all to diminish or minimize the impact of the American witch hunts which resulted in thirty-five deaths. But thirty-five is not millions. It is not hundreds of thousands. It's not even hundreds. It's thirty-five. This was not genocide.

Now in Europe it was a little different. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for practicing witchcraft in 1431. Over a period of 300 years, from 1484 to 1782, the Christian church put to death 300,000 women accused of witchcraft, about 1000 per year. Again, I don't want to minimize the impact of 1000 lives lost a year, but here we're talking about a much, much smaller number over a long period of time than what has been claimed in the past.

In America we're talking thirty-five people. In Europe over 300 years, we're talking about 300,000. Not millions. The sources here are World Book Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Americana . You can also read in Newsweek , August 31, 1992. I was accused of being a liar last week. I'm trying to give you the facts from reputable sources that show that the accusations from last week aren't accurate.

There were two Inquisitions. One of them began right around the end of the first millennium in 1017. It began as an attempt to root out heretics and occurred chiefly in France, Germany, Italy and Spain. The Spanish Inquisition followed in the fourteenth century and was much bloodier. It began as a feudal aristocracy which forced religious values on society. Jews were caught in the middle of this and many of them were killed. About 2000 executions took place. The Inquisition that took place at the turn of the millennium, less than that. So we're talking about thousands of people, not millions.

There were actually seven different Crusades and tens of thousands died in them. Most of them were a misdirected attempt to free the Holy Land. Some weren't quite like that. There were some positive aspects to them, but they were basically an atrocity over a couple hundred years. The worst was the Children's Crusade. All of the children who went to fight died along the way. Some were shipwrecked and the rest were taken into slavery in Egypt.

The statistics that are the result of irreligious genocide stagger the imagination.

A blight on Christianity? Certainty. Something wrong? Dismally wrong. A tragedy? Of course. Millions and millions of people killed? No. The numbers are tragic, but pale in comparison to the statistics of what non-religion criminals have committed. My point is not that Christians or religious people aren't vulnerable to committing terrible crimes. Certainly they are. But it is not religion that produces these things; it is the denial of Biblical religion that generally leads to these kinds of things. The statistics that are the result of irreligious genocide stagger the imagination.

My source is The Guinness Book of World Records . Look up the category "Judicial" and under the subject of "Crimes: Mass Killings," the greatest massacre ever imputed by the government of one sovereign against the government of another is 26.3 million Chinese during the regime of Mao Tse Tung between the years of 1949 and May 1965. The Walker Report published by the U.S. Senate Committee of the Judiciary in July 1971 placed the parameters of the total death toll in China since 1949 between 32 and 61.7 million people. An estimate of 63.7 million was published by Figaro magazine on November 5, 1978.

In the U.S.S.R. the Nobel Prize winner, Alexander Solzhenitsyn estimates the loss of life from state repression and terrorism from October 1917 to December 1959 under Lenin and Stalin and Khrushchev at 66.7 million.

Finally, in Cambodia (and this was close to me because I lived in Thailand in 1982 working with the broken pieces of the Cambodian holocaust from 1975 to 1979) "as a percentage of a nation's total population, the worst genocide appears to be that in Cambodia, formerly Kampuchea. According to the Khmer Rouge foreign minister, more than one third of the eight million Khmer were killed between April 17, 1975 and January 1979. One third of the entire country was put to death under the rule of Pol Pot, the founder of the Communist Party of Kampuchea. During that time towns, money and property were abolished. Economic execution by bayonet and club was introduced for such offenses as falling asleep during the day, asking too many questions, playing non-communist music, being old and feeble, being the offspring of an undesirable, or being too well educated. In fact, deaths in the Tuol Sleng interrogation center in Phnom Penh, which is the capitol of Kampuchea, reached 582 in a day."

Then in Chinese history of the thirteenth to seventeenth centuries there were three periods of wholesale massacre. The numbers of victims attributed to these events are assertions rather than reliable estimates. The figures put on the Mongolian invasion of northern China form 1210 to 1219 and from 1311 to 1340 are both on the order of 35 million people. While the number of victims of bandit leader Chang Hsien-Chung, known as the Yellow Tiger, from 1643 to 1647 in the Szechwan province has been put at 40 million people.

China under Mao Tse Tung, 26.3 million Chinese. According the Walker Report, 63.7 million over the whole period of time of the Communist revolution in China. Solzhenitsyn says the Soviet Union put to death 66.7 million people. Kampuchea destroyed one third of their entire population of eight million Cambodians. The Chinese at two different times in medieval history, somewhere in the vicinity of 35 million and 40 million people. Ladies and gentlemen, make note that these deaths were the result of organizations or points of view or ideologies that had left God out of the equation. None of these involve religion. And all but the very last actually assert atheism.

Religion, and Biblical religion in particular, is a mitigator of evil in the world.

It seems to me that my colleague Dennis Prager's illustration cannot be improved upon to show the self-evident capability of Biblical religion to restrain evil. He asks this in this illustration. If you were walking down a dark street at night in the center of Los Angeles and you saw ten young men walking towards you, would you feel more comfortable if you knew that they had just come from a Bible class? Of course, the answer is certainly you would. That demonstrates that religion, and Biblical religion in particular, is a mitigator of evil in the world. It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God.

But atheism always substitutes a material thing as a god. The atheist's own will, the state, a misconception of science,...

Atheism is nothing more than what you have when you don't have religion. Anything else -- loyalties, morals, opinions, philisophies or politics -- is a seperate matter from atheism.

The official purpose of the persecution, as declared by the Bolsheviks themselves was to promote atheism. The fact that you have identified these particular atheists' god-substitute as the state does not invalidate that point.

If they were advancing an agenda that involved loyalty to the state, then they were promoting more than just atheism. It doesn't mean that they weren't atheists or that their agenda relied on a lack of allegiance to any gods, but their agenda was not, in itself, atheism.

>I see where you are coming from. That is not the meaning that I get from that statement (although it is a perfectly acceptable meaning).

Oh, I don't doubt that the intended meaning from the original statement was an unfair insinuation against Christianity. I simply don't believe that the truth of the statement itself validates the conclusion.

However, if you take a look at Nazism and Communism, they were not only advancing a political agenda, they were also advancing an economic and "moral" (i.e. belief system) one as well.

Actually, I'd say that their economic and "moral" system was tied with their political agenda. Semantic difference, I suppose, I won't dispute the nature of their agenda.

One of the first things that they try to do when taking over a country is to stomp out all other beliefs other than theirs.

Again, I won't dispute that this happens often (though not always; IIRC Alexander the Great and Hammurabi were lenient in allowing, to some extent, the previous religious beliefs of the peoples of conquered lands.). I simply dispute that atheism, in and of itself, is the primary motivation for what happened in the USSR or Nazi Germany. The battles fought and the people killed happened because of a political agenda, just like most wars throughout history. The only difference is that (in the case of Communism at least; Hitler often appealed to duty to God) the conquerers didn't use the guise of religion to "prove" their moral superiority.

It appears that you are saying that atheism is not a belief system. IMHO, if you don't believe in diety, then you are either athiestic or agnostic. Neither Nazism nor Communism was agnostic, since agnosticism admits to only a lack of knowledge of God. &nbspOTOH, athiesm denies Diety's very existance. This was one of the key underpinnings of both Nazism and Communism. Their almost fanatical desire to remove these "superstitions" from the human race.

At this point, the supernatural God is replaced with the state God, and all attempts are made to squash anyone believing anything differently.

Communism as an economic theory doesn't hold water, since it has never been practiced on a large scale - even by communists. It has been about control of people and their beliefs, otherwise why have the worst atrocities committed by communists been perpetrated against their own peoples.

So, 100,000,000+ communist citizens killed by communists, 30,000,000+ nazi citizens killed by nazis in this century alone. Contrast that to 300,000 christians killed by christian nations (for witchcraft) over a 3-century period and perhaps 2 - 3 million (I am guestimating here. I don't know the actual figure) during the 30 years war (the nearest thing to an internecine religious war the christians have ever had). Throw in the 3 or 4 millions killed in christian vs islamic wars in various parts of the world in the 20th century, and the hundreds of thousands killed during the intermittent wars between christians and islam during the last thousand years and we see that the religious wars still don't come up to the level of killing done in the 20th century by communists and nazis.

>It appears that you are saying that atheism is not a belief system. IMHO, if you don't believe in diety, then you are either athiestic or agnostic. Neither Nazism nor Communism was agnostic, since agnosticism admits to only a lack of knowledge of God. &nbspOTOH, athiesm denies Diety's very existance.

Atheism is the absence of property theism. Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of deities is unprovable -- but it does not preclude faith (or lack thereof) that deities exist. Atheism doesn't mean not denying the existence of $DEITYNAME, but it isn't defined as such, because it would require knowing the defined natures of every deity in the whole of human history to carry any meaning -- otherwise how could they be denied?

This was one of the key underpinnings of both Nazism and Communism. Their almost fanatical desire to remove these "superstitions" from the human race.

Nazism was about more than wiping "superstitions" from the human race -- it was about genocide, it was about control and it was about the superiority of specific human traits. It wasn't about removing religion altogether, it was about removing religions that 1) prevented people from pledging alliegance to the Nazi state or 2) were the convenient scapegoat for all of the problems plaguing Germany at the time.
Communism's goal -- well, the "communism" practiced by Lenin and Stalin -- was establishing itself as the only authority to whom its citizens would obey. That does mean stamping out religion, but again that's a function of communism, not atheism itself.

Communism as an economic theory doesn't hold water, since it has never been practiced on a large scale - even by communists. It has been about control of people and their beliefs, otherwise why have the worst atrocities committed by communists been perpetrated against their own peoples.

This is getting onto a bit of a tangent, but I disagree on the nature of communism. Communism isn't inherently oppressive, but the so-called communistic governments oppress their people because it's the only way to keep them in line. Communism actually works well if you are dealing with a small isolated village; it falls apart when you try to expand it to an entire nation.
Communism doesn't fail because it's oppressive. It becomes oppressive because it will fail otherwise.

[snip some numbers, my posts are too long as it is] Throw in the 3 or 4 millions killed in christian vs islamic wars in various parts of the world in the 20th century, and the hundreds of thousands killed during the intermittent wars between christians and islam during the last thousand years and we see that the religious wars still don't come up to the level of killing done in the 20th century by communists and nazis.

The problem is that in the end, most of the slaughter throughout history are done for political reasons with religion being used by the leaders as justification. They may be pushing atheism or Christianty with a sword as a means to an end, but it's rare that their goal is to remove/enforce religious belief. Stalin just managed to replace duty to and fear of God with duty to and fear of The State.

My whole point, which seems to fill up an entire screen in IE because I never know when to shut up, is that "atheism" itself has been no more a motivator of slaughter and violence in human history than Christianity or religion in general.

The problem is that in the end, most of the slaughter throughout history are done for political reasons with religion being used by the leaders as justification

This I have to disagree with. The communists and nazis attacked in the name of the state (fatherland or motherland), never in the name of God (although various leaders did mention their duty to God). Furthermore, most wars in the past appear to be less religiously motivated, even tangentially, than politically motivated. I would suggest that the communists and nazis of the last century have easily wiped out more of their citizens than all people combined killed in actual battle since Temujin (what he did to India makes what we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki look tame in comparison).

Fine, then I trust you will allow Western Christians to defend their forebearers by pointing to other agendas underlying the murderous phases of their history: the Crusades were necessary to reestablish trade routes or undermine the remaning authority of the Emperor (but were publicly justified using religion, the same way promotion of the state was justified using atheism), the Thirty Years War was really a struggle over political power in German (but both sides used religion to justify their agenda...).

I think that would be an idiotic position to take for the same reason I think your defense of real-existing-atheism-in-power is.

Bump

I get asked all the time: “How do I get on this bump list?” Well the answer is you can’t! The FreeRepublic Master Bump List is not a list of people who get notified about a topic appearing on FreeRepublic but it is a list of topics that you can click on and have posts relevant to those topics displayed to you. There are many topics like “WOD_list” (War On Drugs) or “Homeschool_list” (Stories that Homeschoolers may be interested in) or “Homosexual Agenda” (A list of articles related to that topic). And they all appear on the The FreeRepublic Bump List

When you are reading an article you can add it to the list by posting a reply to that topic and in the “TO” box put the name of the list you want it to appear on preceded by an “*”. For example if you want the article to appear on the War on Drugs list then put “*WOD_list” in the “TO:” box instead of someones screen name. You can also put it on several lists by separating the list names with a simi-colon “;”. Then when you want to see the list go to The FreeRepublic Master Bump List and click on the link for that list.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.