Posted on 11/23/2001 6:26:38 AM PST by wwjdn
Edited on 05/07/2004 6:21:43 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
A sign outside a Wilder church stirred a flurry of controversy this week, causing passersby to complain about anti-Muslim sentiment.
The church
(Excerpt) Read more at idahostatesman.com ...
I am losing you. When you do something else that what you say you believe it must be one of the two. You either are weak and fail your own standard or you are a hypocrite. Is it "what makes America so beautiful"? Strange, please explain.
That's probably the saddest fact of the Twentieth Century. There are so many candidates for the award of top monster that we can't decide between them. Whether it's Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong or Iosif Stalin is, quite frankly, anybody's guess.
For now, let's just skip over the whole margin of error thing -- reasonable people have studied the evidence and come up with wildly differing numbers. You're free to check my sources, but for now, trust me. I've studied the matter at great length and decided that the most likely death toll for these three are:
| TYRANT | DEATHS |
| Mao | 45Million |
| Hitler | 34M |
| Stalin | 20M |
Well, that certainly looks like Mao is our man, but wait. Mao's largest crime is the Great Leap Forward, a bungled attempt to restructure the economy of China which created a famine that killed some 30M. If we confine our indictment to deliberate killings, we get this:
| TYRANT | KILLINGS |
| Hitler | 34M |
| Stalin | 20M |
| Mao | 15M |
So it's Hitler, right? Except that most of the deaths on his head were caused by the Second World War. Sure, he started it, but our society does not blanketly condemn the starting of wars (after all, we reserve the right to do it ourselves in a just cause), and we certainly don't consider killing armed enemy soldiers in a fair fight to be a crime against humanity. If we therefore confine ourselves to the cold-blooded murder of unarmed non-combatants, our table rearranges itself again:
| TYRANT | MURDERS |
| Stalin | 20M |
| Hitler | 15M |
| Mao | 15M |
This brings Stalin floating to the top. So it look like once you reduce their crimes to the unjustifiably lowest common denominator, then Stalin is worst; however, you might want to argue that dead is dead so it really doesn't matter if you give your victims a chance to fight back. Fighting an unjust or reckless war is certainly a crime against humanity, so our numbers should go back to:
| TYRANT | KILLINGS |
| Hitler | 34M |
| Stalin | 20M |
| Mao | 15M |
... and these are just the problems we'll encounter if we accept my numbers without debate. If we want to use the estimates of other scholars, we can pin up to 50 million murders on Stalin, enough to push him to the top of the list regardless of definition. Or we can whittle him down to 10 million murders if we use the low end of the margin of error, and scrounge several more tens of millions for Mao, or away from him.
So, the answer to the question of "Who is roasting on the hottest fires in Hell?" is "Well, that depends..."
Obviously, we're going to run into the same vagueries and uncertainties when we try to rank numbers 4 through 10 on the list of the 20th Century's worst killers, but at least we can nominate the candidates. A pretty good case could be made that each of the following rulers (listed alphabetically) were responsible for over a million unjust, unnecessary or unnatural deaths by initiating or intensifying war, famine, democide or resettlement, or by allowing people under their control to do so:
Here are a few of the century's rulers who could easily be indicted for causing hundreds of thousands of unnatural deaths. Although some might be acquitted due to inadequite evidence or mitigating circumstances, it might be a good idea to not build statues to them.
Strange is it not that most if not all of these millions upon millions of deaths were caused by men who believed in no God at all? Hummm...
Bravo! Great Post! What you are referring to is that basic goodness that really made us different from Europe. Your words show that this country still remembers for what its stands.2Th 2: 13* ¶ But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
14* Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
15* Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
16* ¶ Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,
17* Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work.
2 Th 3: 1* ¶ Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you:
2* And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith..
So that you might not be decieved, TopQuark
Repent and learn the truth.
Could you kindly refrain from proselytizing? Contrary to your vain thoughts, you have no moral superiority over others to instruct them on "repentance" and "truth."
This is a forum, not a Sunday school.
You're calling in a Moderator for that???!!!
The generally accepted list consists of seven items, with respect to: 1) idolatry; 2) blasphemy; 3) homicide; 4) incest and adultery; 5) robbery; 6) eating the flesh of a live creature; 7) establishing a system of justice.
"Let he who hath no sword sell his cloak and buy one." ----- Jesus, Luke 22:36.
Mark, this is interesting, but it's Jewish ethics. We were talking about Christian ethics.
The basic point (which you acknowledged) being that even if I was excluded from these religions explicitly, there is no need for alarm or to accuse them of "hate speech" and shout them down. Crusades.. that kind of thing.
We all have a Constitutional right to speak and believe as we wish. So, signs and such, while they might be annoying or not a very good idea from the standpoint of increasing your flock really aren't a cause for alarm or censorship and, actually are based on the very thing which allows us all to co-exist in relative harmony.
Our Constitution.
regards.
Sorry, NO prostelyzing isn't up there. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion. If I wish, and Jim doesn't kick me out, I can try to convice you of the merits of worshiping a large pink elephant who owns a finger of Buddha.
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.