Skip to comments.The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity?
Posted on 11/01/2001 5:38:53 AM PST by Khepera
click here to read article
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)
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.
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.
So Islam really is a religion of peace???
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.
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.
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.
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.
----- 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."
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.