Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity?
It Stands to Reason ^ | Gregory Koukl

Posted on 11/01/2001 5:38:53 AM PST by Khepera

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.

Now for the facts.

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-134 next last

1 posted on 11/01/2001 5:38:53 AM PST by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Khepera
I posted this in response to this piece which states religion is evil and should be banned.
2 posted on 11/01/2001 5:42:23 AM PST by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
It is obvious, that when the secular state regulates religion, that the state lead killings in the name of a religion are only a very subserviance to secular violent means with a religious label.
3 posted on 11/01/2001 5:42:30 AM PST by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
more have been killed in the last 100 years in the name of athiesm than in all of the past 2000 years in the name of "God".
4 posted on 11/01/2001 5:49:31 AM PST by kpp_kpp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
Most killing have been done in the name of political power and economics. War is just politics that has, as Emeril would say, "Kicked up a notch." Religion and other factors are just tools for getting the job done.
5 posted on 11/01/2001 5:50:29 AM PST by oyez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lavaroise
"It is obvious, that when the secular state regulates religion, that the state lead killings in the name of a religion are only a very subserviance to secular violent means with a religious label."

Translation please!

6 posted on 11/01/2001 6:01:16 AM PST by Telit Likitis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: GritsDaily
Fundamentalism kills.

First, define fundamentalism. Secondly, prove that ALL Fundamentalism kills- after all, is it not possible that SOME Fundamentalism kills, but not all? If you cannot prove that ALL Fundamentalism kills, then your second assertion, that Christian Fundamentalism kills, does not follow.

(For the record, I do not consider myself a Fundamentalist of any sort, but I do not like illogical broad assertions such as this one)

8 posted on 11/01/2001 6:09:21 AM PST by MWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Telit Likitis
Killing in the name of Allah is not subserviance to Allah. It is subserviance to killing, an Earthly secular mean. Subserviance to Allah would mean assessing the various Earthly powers and letting them compete for us. Self defense killing as a blessing ability to save one's life is no subserviance, it is a blessing given by God. On the other hand, killing in a purely unprovoked offensive manner is subserviance to killing to attain a pre-meditated goal of conquest of materials.

Muslims claim they kill in pre-meditated ways to spread the word of Allah, but that is a lie, because killing does not help spread the word, an abstract immaterial thing that is independent of material life.

9 posted on 11/01/2001 6:10:26 AM PST by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GritsDaily
anyone can call themselves a fundamentalist and twist the teachings of a belief (or lack thereof) to their own biases and hatreds. that makes for a twisted individual/group, no more.
10 posted on 11/01/2001 6:10:57 AM PST by kpp_kpp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: oyez
The history here is confused. First off, let's put this 'persecution of witches' to rest. People in the 15th and 16th centuries, although Christian, were highly superstitious. This superstition wasn't the fault of Christianity, but simply the *normal human condition* in most pre-modern human societies. Witches were accused of maliciously casting spells and hurting or killing people. People at that time *believed* you could be hurt by a spell. Witches were NOT being punished for being "anti-Christian," but for doing something that practically everyone thought posed an actual, real danger. Look at it in modern terms: the powder sent to the abortion clinics proved to be a hoax, but until it's proven otherwise, people take it as a serious threat. In those days, having no scientific understanding of medicine or physics, they took casting malicious spells to be real. The *intent* was to do evil, in any case, even if spells really didn't work.

As for Joan of Arc, she was a *political prisoner* of the British. The witchcraft charge was a smokescreen, but for the time it made sense - she admitted she heard voices, and wore men's clothing. In those days that was "proof" you were "a witch." Many crazy people were no doubt thought to be witches; again, that showed a lack of scientific understanding.

In the twentieth century, the case is *very* clear that both atheism and paganism have claimed far more lives than any Christian wrongdoing. Atheist Communism was the dominant murderous ideology of the 20th century. Josef Stalin murdered about 9,000,000 peasant farmers (the "kulaks") all over western and southwestern Russia. Mao-Tse-Tung murdered over 10,000,000 Chinese during the "Cultural Revolution" of the 1960s, not to mention the murders of Laotians and Cambodians under communism. The Nazis (who not only murdered 6,000,000 Jews, but another 4 million Christian Europeans, including over half the priests of Poland and many, many Polish Catholics, as well as German Christians who opposed him) were flat-out pagans who made explicit attempts to revive the Norse god worship.

11 posted on 11/01/2001 6:11:27 AM PST by ikanakattara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kpp_kpp
anyone can call themselves a fundamentalist

So Islam really is a religion of peace???

12 posted on 11/01/2001 6:20:13 AM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GritsDaily
Fundamentalism kills.

They are more likely to kill, that's for sure. They get all wound up in their hatred and some eventually strike out at non-believers. I think they are nutty, and they have a history of being extremely deadly.

13 posted on 11/01/2001 6:22:03 AM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lavaroise
Thanks!
14 posted on 11/01/2001 6:24:58 AM PST by Telit Likitis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
There will always be those who believe they have the right whether God given or dint by race of ideology to make everyone else life a misery.

If we were all the same colour all of one religion and all of one ideology there will always be those who will find what to them is a perfectly valid reason to kill there fellow man.

Tony

15 posted on 11/01/2001 6:29:19 AM PST by tonycavanagh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kpp_kpp
more have been killed in the last 100 years in the name of athiesm than in all of the past 2000 years in the name of "God".

Really? More people have been killed in the name of "not having belief in any deities" in 100 years than in the name of "God" in 2000? Do you have any documentation for such?
16 posted on 11/01/2001 6:29:53 AM PST by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
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.

Not really. The worship of the Master Race or of the Historical Dialectic filled the same psychological purpose for these organizations as the worship of Allah does for al-Qaeda.

17 posted on 11/01/2001 6:31:49 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

To: GritsDaily
The intellectual proof of this was the almost instant self-destruction by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

You know nothing about the difference between secular and religious. Jerry and Pat are not religious, they are secular humanists potemkin preachers - much like the muslims. All they talk about is going to heaven so that people can feel good about themselves. They never talk about subserviance to God, they talk about humanist subserviance to physical well being in heaven.

Religion is about emancipation, Jewish emancipation from the Earthly god Pharoh of Egypt and Christian emancipation from the various states addressed in the New Testament - and in particular the Roman state. The Christian prayer is the basis of 1st amendment rights and communication independence from the state - an act rejecting the subserviance to the material state as sole originator of valuable information.

Secular religions are about subserviance to Earthly powers - Marxism is key. In the case of muslims, muslims subserve themselves to violence. That they claim it is in the name of Allah means nothing about religion, because it still makes them subserviant and needy to Earthly powers of violence - and not independent under God.

It's not because one wears a black leather jacket that he is a Nazi. It is not because they SAY it in the name of God that it is religious and not secular. Learn, grow up and go get a grip.

19 posted on 11/01/2001 6:42:04 AM PST by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GritsDaily
Fundamentalism; - Fanaticism; - It matters little exactly how we label it. Intolerence for your fellow man is the killer.

----- Arthur Koestler on fanaticism:

"The continuous disasters of man's history are mainly due to his excessive capacity and urge to become identified with a tribe, nation, church or cause, and to espouse its credo uncritically and enthusiastically, even if its tenets are contrary to reason, devoid of self-interest and detrimental to the claims of self-preservation."
"We are thus driven to the unfashionable conclusion that the trouble with our species is not an excess of aggression, but an excess capacity for fanatical devotion."

20 posted on 11/01/2001 6:46:03 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-134 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson