Theism, Atheism and the body counts

[Tim the Skeptic]

I am constantly reading in posts on this forum that Christianity is responsible for slaughtering millions over the centuries. And I am constantly reading the Christian rebuttal that Communist Atheism slaughtered more. It seems that many believe that the "theism" with the lowest body count is the more ethical belief. I believe this issue has been greatly oversimplified.

Was Hitler a Christian? Is that why he slaughtered "under-humans"? I don't think so. I believe a case could be made that Hitler cynically used Christianity in order to get believers to do his bidding. But there were too many German and Polish Catholics or German and British Prostestants killing each other to believe that WWII was about religion.

I believe European nationalism plays a much bigger role in all the European wars since the Crusades than is recognized in this forum.

As for the slaughters in the atheist Communist states, they seem to me to be more about power than religion. Anything seen as a threat to the status-quo power structure is ruthlessly suppressed. Did Stalin shoot all his army officiers because they believed in God?

The debate topic: Is Faith or non-Faith really responsible for all these slaughters or is there more to it than that?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

This thread would be a good place to expand upon this subject. We have all ready delved a good deal into it, but you may jump in any time.

[AlAyeti]

If Nietzsche (Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche) and Charlse Darwin and their legions of adherants and admirers, are not at fault for the untold number of humans slaughtered after their beliefs took hold in modern society, than it would be appreciated that Christians be afforded the same thoughts for what should be done when following the teachings in New Testament thought.

Or, we let the scales of justice weigh the worth of both.

How many people run into churches for safety?

How many ran into Nazi Germany or Russia for well-being? Were the Russians presenting a society that people ran to be part of? Or, ran from, IF they could?

Anything like the Salavation Army helping others less fortunate finding origins from Nazism or fro atheistic-Communism?

Now remember, in the New Testament, the first gatherings of organized followers of Jesus presented a communism-based society for the believers. See the book of the Acts of the apostles?

So blaming communism isn't all that justified.

But blaming an atheist-based society and governemt - or one based on survival of the fittest - may be.

[juliod]

Is Faith or non-Faith really responsible for all these slaughters or is there more to it than that?

Obviously there is more to it that that.

But the bloody history of religion stands out. Hitler and the Nazis were christian, essentially exlusively. Most were Luthern (and Luther was himself one of the most viscious anti-semites in history). Hitler, anomolously, was Catholic. The Nazi rhetoric was not really different from the Luthern anti-semitism that was present in Germany for centuries. In fact Luther was himself a major proponent of pre-state nationalism. (He argued that German affair, including religious ones) should be decided by german princes, not the Pope in Rome. One of the larger episodes of butchery in Europe resulted.

Communism is of course a Red Herring. No communist country ever eradicated the religious component of their society and none even tried to. Stalin oppressed the Russian church only to the degree that he oppressed every other organization, and to a much lesser extend that he oppressed worker's unions, for example. Stalin, BTW, studied for the clergy, and I'm not sure if we know what his personal views were. In any case, the old Soviet Union was remarkable peaceful, fighting no major wars except the Second World War, which was thrust on them.

The fact is that nobody fights or kills for atheism. An atheist may fight or kill, but there must be some other reason behind it. Religious violence, OTOH, is always characterized chiefly in religious terms. A Sunni car-bomber, for example, is operating principally as a Sunni, even though he or she may also have additional motives. Timothy McVeigh expressed his motives of the Oklahoma City bombing in religious terms.

Total figures? Since one of the functions of religion is to explain and excuse violence committed by a society, we should expect there to be major religious justification for all violence from executions to war. This is what we see. Religion is a major contributor to almost all historical violence. Violence that lacks a majro religious component is difficult to identify.

DanZ

[keltzkroz]

No communist country ever eradicated the religious component of their society and none even tried to.

While this might be true, I just thought that I need to add something, perhaps unrelated. Mao Zedong's parting shot to the Dalai Lama: "Religion is poison."

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Is there no hope in keeping this topic exclusive to the original thread I mentioned above?


Oh screw it.


I think the "bloody history" of religion is vastly exagerrated. The primal factors contributing to the outbreak of so called 'religious' atrocities and war go much deeper than what is acclaimed by leading proctors. Just because a war is "in the name of God" does not necessarily make it so at the core.

Name me a religious war. Any war. I guarantee 95% of the time I can give a rationale for outbreak that does not relate to religion. Self-indulgent desires underlie every war in the history of humanity (with a couple exceptions, perhaps). "Religious" wars are no different.

Hitler and the Nazis were christian, essentially exlusively. Most were Luthern (and Luther was himself one of the most viscious anti-semites in history). Hitler, anomolously, was Catholic.

Hitler bashed Christianity in private. But up on the podium, it was his strongest rallying tool.

The core principles leading to WW2 were anything but religious. One of the biggest factors, of course, was the treaty of Versailles, which left Germany penniless and in ruin. Coupled with their humiliating defeat, this would be enough to drive any nationalistic country delirious with spite. Greed, power, and intolerance fueled the volley.

The Nazi rhetoric was not really different from the Luthern anti-semitism that was present in Germany for centuries. In fact Luther was himself a major proponent of pre-state nationalism. (He argued that German affair, including religious ones) should be decided by german princes, not the Pope in Rome. One of the larger episodes of butchery in Europe resulted.

If you are referring to the German pheasant outbreak, I am pretty sure Luther decryed that vehemently.

If you are referring to WW2 again, then nevermind.

If you are stating that Luther taught anti-semitism, then please elaborate. I am not aware of any such doctrine.

But all the same, what exactly are you referring to?

The fact is that nobody fights or kills for atheism.

There has never been anti-religious conflict?

This statement is rather counterfactual, if my history books deserve a vest in trust.

Timothy McVeigh expressed his motives of the Oklahoma City bombing in religious terms.

I should like to see the verses he uses for justification. The sixth commandment, perhaps?

1Peter 3:8
Finally, everyone must live in harmony, be sympathetic, love each other, have compassion, and be humble.

The prevalent message of Christianity. Pure and consistent. Do we blame Marx for the spread of Capitalism? Of course not. So how do we blame Jesus for violence in the world?

A Sunni car-bomber, for example, is operating principally as a Sunni, even though he or she may also have additional motives.

So lets say I am a missionary in Somalia, employed to feed the poor. If I decide to raid an impoverished family's cabinet, am I still acting as a missionary?

It is those "additional motives" that make or break a suicide bomber.

Now, I do not know much about the Quran. However, I am willing to bet there is nothing in it denoting followers to torch civilians in order to "spread the word". Correct me if I am wrong.

Intolerance is a specter exclusive to most religions. We know what Jesus had to say about it, at any rate:

1Tim 5:21
I solemnly call on you in the sight of God, Christ Jesus, and the chosen angels to be impartial when you follow what I've told you. Never play favorites.

Total figures?

Certainly:





The major wars of the 20th century; the vast majority of which have absolutely no religious significance. A tell-tale graph.




I think the few loonies running around with bombs duct taped to their chest negate the many good things religion contributes to society in the public eye. But of course, a suicide bomber always grabs more news coverage than a bland old Christian charity. Come on man, those things have been around for centuries. Old news.

[youngborean]

I posted this quote in another thread. In my mind it proves that Hitler was categorically NOT a christian.

"Christianity is the prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society."
Hitler 1941

Anyone willing to still call him a christian is really only out to bash Christianity.

As for Luther's anti-semitism, it existed late in his life. Early in his life he had very close relationships with Jews. His passion for Paul throughout the reformation led him to believe he could sucessfully convert Jews. I think his statement late in his life we a result of his failure to have a breakthrough.

You can read about that here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_the_Jews

Thanks for the chart, I think it says alot.

[youngborean]

No communist country ever eradicated the religious component of their society and none even tried to.

??

Tell that to all of my wife's relatives who have had to escape communist China due their Christian heritage. Or look at Tibet. How can you even make this claim? Just because they never made it a law to ban religion, there was plenty of persecution of Jews and Christians in Communist Russia. They arrested people for meeting in homes for religious purposes. They were simply living up Marx's belief that "religion is the sickness of mankind" (sounds frighteningly similar to Hitler's quote above). Plain and simple. If you have a Marxist state, you must persecute religion despite your facade of laws.

[MagusYanam]

Tell that to all of my wife's relatives who have had to escape communist China due their Christian heritage. Or look at Tibet. How can you even make this claim? Just because they never made it a law to ban religion, there was plenty of persecution of Jews and Christians in Communist Russia. They arrested people for meeting in homes for religious purposes. They were simply living up Marx's belief that "religion is the sickness of mankind" (sounds frighteningly similar to Hitler's quote above). Plain and simple. If you have a Marxist state, you must persecute religion despite your facade of laws.

Having studied Chinese history for about four years now and having visited in the past year, I would say that representing China as a communist state is arguable even from the start, especially since Mao Zedong's philosophy differed from real Marxism in many key ways. The Chinese Communists were influenced heavily (though they at points emphatically denied it) by the humanist principles of Kong Zi (Confucius) and the nationalist principles of Sun Zhongshan (Sun Yat-sen) as well as by Marx. The Chinese brand of communism also had a heavy pastoral-romantic streak (venerating the peasant as the backbone of the egalitarian society), which European Marxism (with its focus on municipal and industrial growth) lacked, even abhorred.

And then Deng Xiaoping took power and Chinese communism stopped resembling Marxism really at all. Now China is more a political oligarchy than a Marxist state, even in philosophy (especially now that they have a freer market even than we have, which is a little scary).

But you won't get any arguments from me about what they're doing to Tibet. There's some pretty strong resentment between the Han and the Zang because of Mao and subsequent Chinese regimes.

European Marxism, however, took a little bit of a different road. You have from the beginning a sort of dichotomy between socialists (Marxist reformists, usually opposed to violent or extremist upheavals in the accomplishment of an egalitarian society, today represented by Germany's SDP and Britain's New Labour Party - kind of) and communists (extremists in favour of violent upheavals in the creation of an egalitarian society, represented by Lenin, Trotsky and to a lesser extent, Stalin). The communists were hard-core anti-religion, seeing it as a tool of the powerful to keep the weak in line, and their behaviour seems to correspond. However, many socialists even from the very beginning were Christian and very solidly, too - quoting Jesus as 'the first socialist' and looking to the kerygmatic Church as an example for what society should be and how it should be structured. There are some big names in the history of Christian socialism - Frederick Denison Maurice, Walter Rauschenbusch, Norman Thomas and Reinhold Niebuhr, even authors like H. G. Wells and George Orwell.

I think an indictment of Stalinism for persecuting the religious and trying to stamp out religion may be called for, but labelling all of Marxism as being anti-religious would be going too far.

[Tim the Skeptic]

Is there no hope in keeping this topic exclusive to the original thread I mentioned above?


Oh screw it.

I'm sorry, Platypus. But your's is in Philosophy, maybe we could all agree to just consider this the Politics franchise of your original thread. Again, I'm really sorry.


Random thoughts.

Luther: I agree with youngborean about Luther's anti-semitism. I have also heard that he felt that all his writings should be burned after his death. Like trying to retract a not-well-thought-out email. Technology changes, people are still pretty much the same.

PP's graph is excellent. (It was excellent on the Philosophy site as well. Did I mention I was sorry?)

Timothy McVeigh seemed to me to more of an anti-government thing. Wasn't he pretty anti-government even before the Waco events?

Middle East Islam is a tougher one to classify. I don't get the idea the modern Muslims feel that government should be seperate from religion like Western nations do. Politics is religion and vice versa. The Middle East doesn't seem as nationalistic as it seems tribal or ethnic.

Communist countries have definitely presecuted Christians as well as other religious groups. But why? I believe it was because they viewed religion as a threat to their power not because they believed in a particular god. Stalin's officier purge and Mao's Cultural Revolution killed millions more than just religious people.