Mass Murder

New Testament	Early Church
Albigensian Crusade	Waldensians
What Went Wrong?	Canaan
Constantine	No True Scotsman
Pagan Intolerance	Atheist Mass Murder
Islam	The Crusades
All or Nothing	Iraq

New Testament

The New Testament prescribes shunning heretics, not murder:

"If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds." (2 John 1:10-11).

"Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them." (Romans 16:17).

"Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned." (Titus 3:10-11).

This is common church discipline for those brothers not walking the walk:

“I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore 'put away from yourselves the evil person.'” (1 Corinthians 5:9-13).

Early Church

The early church writers continued the New Testament emphasis:

"However, it is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according to his own convictions: one man’s religion neither harms nor helps another man. It is assuredly no part of religion to compel religion — to which free-will and not force should lead us — the sacrificial victims even being required of a willing mind. You will render no real service to your gods by compelling us to sacrifice. For they can have no desire of offerings from the unwilling, unless they are animated by a spirit of contention, which is a thing altogether undivine. Accordingly the true God bestows His blessings alike on wicked men and on His own elect; upon which account He has appointed an eternal judgment, when both thankful and unthankful will have to stand before His bar." (To Scapula, Tertullian, Chapter 2).

Refuting the pagan Celsus, Origen notes Christians could not, even if they wished, reimpose the Mosaic law, being forbidden to strike their enemies:

"However, if we must refer briefly to the difference between the constitution which was given to the Jews of old by Moses, and that which the Christians, under the direction of Christ’s teaching, wish now to establish, we would observe that it must be impossible for the legislation of Moses, taken literally, to harmonize with the calling of the Gentiles, and with their subjection to the Roman government; and on the other hand, it would be impossible for the Jews to preserve their civil economy unchanged, supposing that they should embrace the Gospel. For Christians could not slay their enemies, or condemn to be burned or stoned, as Moses commands, those who had broken the law, and were therefore condemned as deserving of these punishments; since the Jews themselves, however desirous of carrying out their law, are not able to inflict these punishments." (Origen, Against Celsus, Book 7, Chapter 26)

Lactantius sings the swan-song of the early church era:

"There is no occasion for violence and injury, for religion cannot be imposed by force; the matter must be carried on by words rather than by blows, that the will may be affected. Let them unsheath the weapon of their intellect; if their system is true, let it be asserted. We are prepared to hear, if they teach; while they are silent, we certainly pay no credit to them, as we do not yield to them even in their rage. Let them imitate us in setting forth the system of the whole matter: for we do not entice, as they say; but we teach, we prove, we show. And thus no one is detained by us against his will, for he is unserviceable to God who is destitute of faith and devotedness; and yet no one departs from us, since the truth itself detains him...Torture and piety are widely different; nor is it possible for truth to be united with violence, or justice with cruelty...For religion is to be defended, not by putting to death, but by dying; not by cruelty, but by patient endurance; not by guilt, but by good faith: for the former; belong to evils, but the latter to goods; and it is necessary for that which is good to have place in religion, and not that which is evil. For if you wish to defend religion by bloodshed, and by tortures, and by guilt, it will no longer be defended, but will be polluted and profaned. For nothing is so much a matter of free-will as religion; in which, if the mind of the worshipper is disinclined to it, religion is at once taken away, and ceases to exist. The right method therefore is, that you defend religion by patient endurance or by death; in which the preservation of the faith is both pleasing to God Himself, and adds authority to religion." (Lactantius, Divine Institutes, Book 5, 20).

Even as the emperor was violating it, Ossius enunciated the principle of separation of church and state:

"Stop, I beg you, and remember that you are a mortal man: fear the day of judgment and keep yourself pure for it. Do not intrude yourself into the affairs of the church, and do not give us advice about these matters, but rather receive instruction on them from us. God has given you kingship, but has entrusted us with what belongs to the church. Just as the man who tries to steal your position as emperor contradicts God who has placed you there, so too you should be afraid of becoming guilty of a great offense by putting the affairs of the church under your control. It is written: 'Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God those that are God's.' (Matthew 22.21). Hence neither do we have the right to rule over the world nor do you, emperor, have the right to officiate in church. (Hist. Ar. 44.6-8, quoted p. 175, Athanasius and Constantius, Timothy D. Barnes).

Athanasius protested in favor of persuasion:

"But this modern and accursed heresy, when it is overthrown by argument, when it is cast down and covered with shame by the very Truth, forthwith endeavors to coerce by violence and stripes and imprisonment those whom it has been unable to persuade by argument, thereby acknowledging itself to be anything rather than godly. For it is the part of true godliness not to compel, but to persuade, as I said before. Thus our Lord Himself, not as employing force, but as offering to their free choice, has said to all, 'If any man will follow after Me,' and to His disciples, 'Will ye also go away?'" (Athanasius, 'History of the Arians,' Part VII, Section 67).

Albigensian Crusade

Jesus gave a simple test for discerning His followers: "By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35).

As far as is the east from the west is mass murder from "love for one another." Yet mass murder, against the gnostic dualists of Southern France, the Albigensians, is just what history has hid her weeping eyes from seeing, instigated by the very institutions upon which the Roman Catholic Church bases its claim to legitimacy:

"It was [Pope] Innocent III who initiated measures which dealt the decisive blows against the dissidents...The outstanding lord in Southern France, Count Raymond VI of Toulouse, evaded Papal efforts to induce him to take positive action and Philip Augustus, the King of France, hesitated further to complicate his own difficult problems, including his chronic troubles with England, by risking a prolonged internal war to enforce the Papal commands. Then, in 1208, the Papal Legate, Peter of Castelnau, was murdered in Raymond's domains and perhaps at his court. Innocent took advantage of the widespread horror evoked by the crime to call forth a crusading army. Religious zeal represented in an outstanding leader of the crusading armies, Simon de Montfort, combined with quite secular motives, sectional jealousies, and the desire of the nobles of Northern France to reduce the power of the South and to profit by its wealth.

"Years of warfare followed, with wholesale destruction. It is said that when one of the first cities to be taken, Beziers, was entered, and the Papal Legate was asked whether the Catholics should be spared, the latter, fearing that the heretics would feign orthodoxy to save their lives, commanded: 'Kill them all, for God knows His own.'"

Steps the ecclesiastical council at Toulouse took, after the corpses were disposed of, to eradicate the Albigensian heresy include:

"Among other measures, the council forbade to the laity the possession of copies of the Bible, except the Psalms and such passages as were in the breviary, and condemned vernacular translations." (Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity, Volume I, pp. 456-457).

The casualties of this Papal Crusade numbered in the tens of thousands:

"The Church reserved to itself the right to redistribute among the more faithful crusaders the confiscated lands of the defeated heretics. Thus the crusade attracted the most disreputable elements in northern France, and the result was horror. In 1209, Arnold Aimery exulted to the Pope that the capture of Beziers had been 'miraculous'; and that the crusaders had killed 15,000, 'showing mercy neither to order, nor age nor sex.' Prisoners were mutilated, blinded, dragged at the hooves of horses and used for target practice." (Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, p. 252).

Can blame for this event be laid on Jesus' shoulders? No!:

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." (Matthew 5:38-39).

The Bishop of Rome

Waldensians

The Waldensians differed from the Albigensians in that the Waldensians were orthodox, Bible-believing Christians. They are first heard from around 1170 A.D. as followers of a certain "Valdensius." Though not gnostics, their experience with Rome was much the same:

"A fate similar to that of Pragelato [1487] was in store for the Waldensians in the valleys of Argentieres and Vallouise. These folk had been consistently pacifist by tradition, so that they did not resist when the invaders came. The crusaders then proceeded to level their villages, destroying every trace of the Waldensian heritage. A few escaped massacre by hiding in caves or in wooded areas while others submitted to a forced adjuration of their faith. Those who managed to flee the area eventually joined with the Waldensians in the far south of Italy." (Giorgio Tourn, The Waldensians, the first 800 years, p. 65).

Once the Protestant reformation got underway, these Christians reached out to their reformed brethren. The end of their isolation did not guarantee their safety but only marked them out the more for Rome's wrath:

"There were sporadic attempts at resistance by a few. The old tradition of non-violence, however, with its innate respect for constituted authority, its ingenuousness and simplicity of heart, led the Waldensians to give themselves up. On June 5, 1561, the town of San Sisto, with its 6,000 inhabitants, was burned to the ground. Guardia Piemontese, its neighbor, was likewise destroyed. Prisoners were burned like torches, sold as slaves to the Moors or condemned to die of starvation in the dungeons of Cosenza. The massacre reached its height at Mantalto Uffugo on June 11th. On the steps in front of the parish church, 88 Waldensians were slaughtered one by one, like animals brought to market." (Giorgio Tourn, The Waldensians, the first 800 years, p. 91)

Surviving Waldensians adopted guerrilla tactics, and kept on surviving...and being killed:

"On April 24 [1655], Pra del Torno was taken by assault, reduced to rubble and thoroughly plundered -- that traditional place of refuge which in the past had been the Waldensian bastion of resistance and sanctuary of important victories. Within a few days the same fate befell Villar and Bobbio. Soon the ghastly picture was everywhere the same -- unarmed people tortured sadistically and massacred, the terror-stricken fleeing for their lives while the soldiers came down from the heights laden with booty." (Giorgio Tourn, The Waldensians, the first 800 years, p. 123).

Given that the victims of this unrelenting violence were Christians, it seems unduly harsh for atheists to nominate its perpetrators as the true Christians.

Divide and Conquer

What Went Wrong?

In the early church, bishops, including the bishop of Rome, were chosen by vote of the clergy and laity: "The ordinary process of the choice of a bishop by the middle of the third century was a nomination by the other clergy, especially the presbyters, of the city; the approval of neighboring bishops, and ratification or election by the congregation." (A History of the Christian Church, Revised Edition, Williston Walker et al, p. 83). Even Cyprian, an early promoter of clerical power, admits "the suffrage of the people" was at that time considered requisite for the legitimate election of a bishop:

"Moreover, Cornelius was made bishop by the judgment of God and of His Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the suffrage of the people who were then present, and by the assembly of ancient priests and good men..." (Cyprian, Letters, 51:8)

"...no one, after the divine judgment, after the suffrage of the people, after the consent of the co-bishops, would make himself a judge, not now of the bishop, but of God." (Cyprian, Letters, 54:5)

"But — I speak to you as being provoked; I speak as grieving; I speak as constrained — when a bishop is appointed into the place of one deceased, when he is chosen in time of peace by the suffrage of an entire people, when he is protected by the help of God in persecution, faithfully linked with all his colleagues, approved to his people by now four years’ experience in his episcopate...when such a one, dearest brother, is seen to be assailed by some desperate and reckless men, and by those who have their place outside the Church, it is manifest who assails him..." (Cyprian, Letters, 54:6)

"...while the Bishop Cornelius was ordained in the Catholic Church by the judgment of God, and by the suffrages of the clergy and people..." (Cyprian, Letters, 66:2).

The people were free to choose the person they wanted to govern the church; they did not have to choose between candidates nominated by others. Just as William Jennings Bryan's barn-burner of a speech, 'The Cross of Gold,' inspired the Democratic National Convention to name him as their candidate in 1896, Ambrose's speech led the church of Milan to elect him, though he had not previously been mentioned as a candidate:

"So he went to the church. And when he was addressing the people, the voice of a child among the people is said to have called out suddenly: 'Ambrose bishop.' At the sound of this voice, the mouths of all the people joined in the cry: 'Ambrose bishop.' Thus, those who a while before were disagreeing most violently, because both the Arians and the Catholics wished the other side to be defeated and their own candidate to be consecrated bishop, suddenly agreed on this one with miraculous and unbelievable harmony." (Life of Ambrose, by Paulinus, Chapter 3).

“ABOUT the same time it happened that another event took place at Milan well worthy of being recorded. On the death of Auxentius, who had been ordained bishop of that church by the Arians, the people again were disturbed respecting the election of a successor; for as some proposed one person, and others favored another, the city was full of contention and uproar. In this state of things the governor of the province, Ambrose by name, who was also of consular dignity, dreading some catastrophe from the popular excitement, ran into the church in order to quell the disturbance. As he arrived there and the people became quiet, he repressed the irrational fury of the multitude by a long and appropriate address, by urging such motives as they felt to be right, and all present suddenly came to an unanimous agreement, crying out ‘that Ambrose was worthy of the bishopric,’ and demanding his ordination: ‘for by that means only,’ it was alleged, ‘would the peace of the church be secured, and all be reunited in the same faith and judgment.’”
(Socrates Scholasticus, Church History, Book IV, Chapter 30).
"ABOUT this period Liberius died, and Damasus succeeded to the see of Rome. A deacon named Ursicius, who had obtained some votes in his favor, but could not endure the defeat, therefore caused himself to be clandestinely ordained by some bishops of little note, and endeavored to create a division among the people and to hold a separate church. He succeeded in effecting this division, and some of the people respected him as bishop, while the rest adhered to Damasus."
(Sozomen, Church History, Book VI, Chapter 23).
"The city of Caesarea was in an uproar about the election of a bishop; for one had just departed, and another must be found, amidst heated partisanship not easily to be soothed. For the city was naturally exposed to party spirit, owing to the fervor of its faith, and the rivalry was increased by the illustrious position of the see. Such was the state of affairs; several Bishops had arrived to consecrate the Bishop; the populace was divided into several parties, each with its own candidate, as is usual in such cases, owing to the influences of private friendship or devotion to God; but at last the whole people came to an agreement..."
(Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 18.33).
"Thus, and for these reasons, by the vote of the whole people, not in the evil fashion which has since prevailed, nor by means of bloodshed and oppression, but in an apostolic and spiritual manner, he is led up to the throne of Saint Mark, to succeed him in piety, no less than in office..."
(Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 21.8).

Even as late as Leo the Great, the principle of popular election still held:

"When therefore the choice of the chief priest is taken in hand, let him be preferred before all whom the unanimous consent of clergy and people demands, but if the votes chance to be divided between two persons, the judgment of the metropolitan should prefer him who is supported by the preponderance of votes and merits: only let no one be ordained against the express wishes of the place: lest a city should either despise or hate a bishop whom they did not choose, and lamentably fall away from religion because they have not been allowed to have when they wished." (Leo the Great, Letters, Letter 14, To Anastasius, Section VI.)

Though Leo was doing all in his power to turn the clergy into a closed guild and transfer real power to the hierarchy, he cannot help but express the traditional view, that a popular election is the way for the Holy Ghost to cast His vote:

"Accordingly, we ratify with our sanction your good deed, brethren, in unanimously, on the death of Hilary of holy memory, consecrating our brother Ravennius, a man well approved by us, in the city of Aries, in accordance with the wishes of the clergy, the leading citizens, and the laity. Because a peace-making and harmonious election, where neither personal merits nor the good will of the congregation are wanting, is we believe the expression not only of man’s choice, but of God’s inspiration." (Leo the Great, Letters, Letter 40, To the Bishops of the Province of Arles).

Just as modern Baptist churches elect their leadership, so did the ancient church. Disputes between churches were settled in collegial fashion, by consensus reached at councils such as that held at Jerusalem (Acts 15).

In later years, as they turned from following their heavenly Lord to empire-building on earth, this way of church governance changed. The bishop of Rome, who had come to tyrannize over the other churches, ceased altogether to be chosen by popular vote: "The most significant event of the papacy of Nicholas II was the decree of this Roman synod of 1059 regulating choice to the papacy...In theory, the choice of the Pope had been, like that of other bishops, by the clergy and people of the city of his see. This was termed a canonical election...The evident purpose was to put the election into the hands of the cardinals, primarily of the cardinal bishops...This was, indeed, a revolution in the method of choice of the Pope, and would give to the office an independence of political control not heretofore possessed." (A History of the Christian Church, Revised Edition, Williston Walker et al, p. 206). The church, having been a democracy, became instead a police state ruled by a self-perpetuating elite. Universal human experience with one-man rule shows that this system goes hand-in-hand with human rights abuses. The church's experience did not depart from the norm.

Separation of Church and State

Canaan

Some who defended these actions looked to Old Testament precedents like the extirpation of the pagan inhabitants of Canaan by the children of Israel. But God had already determined to drive the Canaanites and their toxic culture into extinction; no man could determine on such a course by his own authority. He is the potter, we the clay: "Can I not do with you, O house of Israel, just as this potter has done? says the LORD. Just like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel." (Jeremiah 18:6). Where the potter has not spoken, by what authority can anyone pluck His workmanship out of His hands?

Bible Difficulties

Constantine

"Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor; and he said to him, 'All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.' Jesus said to him, 'Away with you, Satan!'" (Matthew 4:8-10).

Satan's temptation, resisted by the Lord, was not resisted by some of His followers. The emperor Constantine began his reign with the admirable Edict of Milan:

Seek Peace

The Edict of Milan (313 A. D.)

"When I, Constantine Augustus, as well as I, Licinius Augustus, fortunately met near Milan, and were considering everything that pertained to the public welfare and security, we thought, among other things which we saw would be for the good of many, those regulations pertaining to the reverence of the Divinity ought certainly to be made first, so that we might grant to the Christians and others full authority to observe that religion which each preferred; whence any Divinity whatsoever in the seat of the heavens may be propitious and kindly disposed to us and all who are placed under our rule. And thus by this wholesome counsel and most upright provision we thought to arrange that no one whatsoever should be denied the opportunity to give his heart to the observance of the Christian religion, or that religion which he should think best for himself, so that the Supreme Deity, to whose worship we freely yield our hearts, may show in all things His usual favor and benevolence. Therefore, your Worship should know that it has pleased us to remove all conditions whatsoever, which were in the rescripts formerly given to you officially, concerning the Christians and now any one of these who wishes to observe Christian religion may do so freely and openly, without molestation. We thought it fit to commend these things most fully to your care that you may know that we have given to those Christians free and unrestricted opportunity of religious worship. When you see that this has been granted to them by us, your Worship will know that we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases; this regulation is made we that we may not seem to detract from any dignity or any religion."
[...]
(from Lactantius, De Mort. Pers., ch. 48. opera, ed. 0. F. Fritzsche, II, p 288 sq.) (Bibl Patr. Ecc. Lat. XI). (Internet Medieval Sourcebook).

But the emperors who followed after, with the brief interlude of Julian the Apostate, increasingly adopted Taliban-style limitations of religious liberty until late in the fourth century the practice of paganism was criminalized. The Christian Church, once persecuted by the pagans, itself turned persecutor, turning its back to its founder's commands. A grim milestone was reached in 385 A.D. when the gnostic heretic Priscillian was put to death. Even prior to that date members of a sect called 'Massalians,' meaning "people who pray," who worshipped "the Almighty" in public prayer meetings, had been persecuted to the death by nominally Christian authorities:

"Moreover, some zealous provincial governors have put many of these persons to death for debasing the truth and counterfeiting the customs of the church without being either Christians or Jews." (Epiphanius, Panarion, Books II and III, Section VII, Against Massalians, Chapter 60 (90), 2,3)

Paul cautions that marriage can lead to worldliness, as a wife seeks to please her husband: "...but she that is married cares for the things of the world, how she may please her husband." (1 Corinthians 7:34). To what level of compromise with the world does climbing into bed with Caesar lead?

Church Government

No True Scotsman

The fallacious argument known as 'No True Scotsman' runs like so:

'No true Scotsman would steal a Bible.'
'But the Scotsman next door was just convicted of stealing a Bible.'
'Obviously, he's no true Scotsman.'

When crimes against humanity like the Inquisition and Albigensian Crusade are brought to their attention, Christians note that those guilty of these crimes were neither following the Lord's instructions nor animated by the Holy Spirit. After all, the Bible goes so far as to say, "We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death." (1 John 3:14). Atheists respond, 'Aha! No true Scotsman!'

Unlike 'Scotsmen,' perceptibly born to their estate, children of God are such only if acknowledged by their Father: "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'" (Matthew 7:23).

The entry cost into the family of God is not high, one need only trust the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. But some who claim to have done so remain, according to God's word, 'liars': "If someone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?" (1 John 4:2). While natal geography makes a Scotsman, faith, invisible to all but the One who searches the heart and mind, makes a child of God.

This is why I do not think, versus the atheists, that such crimes against humanity as the Inquisition demonstrate the nullity of the Christian promise. Whether the criminals responsible are God's erring children, or none of His, their actions are not Christianity in action, but the old Adam resurgent.

No True Scotsman

Pagan Intolerance

One would think, listening to atheists, that Christians invented intolerance. Such is not the case. The 'argumentum ad baculum,' fallacious resort to force, is a standing temptation faced by humanity, from Cain onwards. Pagans are by no means immune:

"Protageras of Abdera, whom you just now mentioned, the greatest sophist of his age, was banished by order of the Athenians from their city and territories, and his books were publicly burned, because these words were in the beginning of his treatise concerning the Gods: 'I am unable to arrive at any knowledge whether there are, or are not, any Gods.'" (Cicero, The Nature of the Gods, Book I, XXIII.)

Paganism in its heyday knew communal religious rioting:

"An ancient, long-nourished feud, an undying hatred no truce
Can resolve, and wounds that can't be healed, are burning between
The neighboring towns of Ombi and Tentyra. Each side is seen
Swelling up with fury because each one has always hated
Its neighbor's gods and believed that none should be venerated
As gods but its own. So when a festival time came around,
The leaders and chiefs of the enemy cult thought they had found
A good chance that shouldn't be missed to keep the other town
From enjoying a glad and happy day -- great feasts in squares
And temples on the tables, and sofas that got constant wear
From lollers day and night, till the sun for the seventh time rose
To surprise them. Egypt is, no doubt, uncouth; but in those
Debaucheries practiced today, from what I myself have seen,
Its barbaric mob yields nothing to ill-famed Canopus. They dream
That defeat of babbling, staggering drunks would not be hard.
Over there men dancing to a black piper, with nard or lard
Or heaven knows what and flowers and chaplets on their heads;
Over here, a ravening hate. But they start, with noise widespread,
Their first insults -- war trumpets to passions burning to fight.
Then shouts back and forth, they clash, and bare hands rage to smite
Instead of weapons. Few jaws and chins escape being gashed,
Few noses, or none, come out of the fracas unbloodied, unsmashed.
Throughout the ranks can be seen broken faces, looking like none
That's human, bones gaping through torn cheeks, and fists that run
With blood from eyes. Yet they think themselves at play, in a game
Of waging war, like boys, for no corpses are trampled in shame.
And indeed, to what end does a mob of so many thousands brawl
If everyone lives? So the fight grows fiercer, and now they fall
To throwing stones -- the usual weapon in riots -- which they,
Stooping down, search for on the ground..." (Satires of Juvenal, Egyptian Cannibals, XV).

The trial of Socrates is a good case study in pagan intolerance:

Socrates' Apology

Pagans were intolerant, not of other pagans only, but of Christians and Jews. The successors of Alexander the Great sought to Hellenize the lands he had conquered; 'Jehovah' was to consolidated with 'Zeus' and non-Greek customs like circumcision must cease. What this meant, for Jews in the days of the Maccabees, was conformity or death.

Pagan Anti-Semitism

There's nothing new under the sun. The pagans who fed Christians to the lions had not been taught intolerance by Christians, nor needed to be taught.

Atheist Mass Murder

Atheists condemn Christianity on the strength of atrocities like the Albigensian Crusade. Yet if we were to tote up the casualty count achieved by the officially atheistic regimes the world has seen, the atheists have the Inquisitors beat by a mile. Notorious atheist butchers like Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and Enver Hoxha slaughtered their own people at an unheard-of rate. When it comes to piling up a body count, atheists take second place to none.

Starting in the Year Zero, Cambodia's Pol Pot eliminated an estimated one in five Cambodians:

"His harsh rule led to the deaths of an estimated one in five Cambodians, either through execution, illness, overwork, or starvation. He tried quickly to impose a communist rural utopia that excluded money, religion, property, cities, law, even romantic marriage." (Christian Science Monitor, February 1, 2005, 'The 20th century's most disastrous drive for rural utopia,' by Clayton Jones)

John Lennon, in his song 'Imagine,' dreams what a utopia this world would be if religion were to fade away. The world's actual experience with atheist regimes is that they are likelier to bring in hell on earth before they bring in heaven.

Christians are a common target of atheist persecution. When Communism came to Russia, the Bolsheviks' forced grain requisitions produced a severe famine within a few years. Vladimir Lenin decreed that, to combat the (Bolshevik-induced) famine, the Church should auction off its gold-encrusted icons and other treasures. The church was eager, as always, to help the hungry, but not in this way. This deliberate provocation sparked a conflict which cut short the lives of thousands of Russian Orthodox clergy and lay-people:

"On 26 February 1922 a decree was sent out to the local Soviets instructing them to remove from the churches all precious items, including those used for religious worship. The decree claimed that their sale was necessary to help the famine victims; but little of the money raised was used for this purpose. Armed bands gutted the local churches, carrying away the icons and crosses, the chalices and mitres, even the iconostases in bits. In many places angry crowds took up arms to defend their local church. In some places they were led by their priests, at others they fought spontaneously. The records tell of 1,414 bloody clashes during 1922-3. Most of these were utterly one-sided. Troops with machine-guns fought against old men and women armed with pitch forks and rusty rifles: 7,100 clergy were killed, including nearly 3,500 nuns, but only a handful of Soviet troops. One such clash in the textile town of Shuya, 200 miles north-east of Moscow, in March 1922, prompted Lenin to issue a secret order for the extermination of the clergy. The event was typical enough: on Sunday 12 March worshippers fought off Soviet officials when they came to raid the local church; when the officials returned three days later with troops and machine-guns there was some fighting with several people killed. The Politburo, in Lenin's absence, voted to suspend further confiscations. But Lenin, hearing of the events in Shuya, dictated contrary orders over the phone from his country residence at Gorki with strict instructions of top secrecy. . .Lenin argued that the events in Shuya should be exploited to link the clergy with the Black Hundreds, to destroy the Church 'for many decades,' and to 'assure ourselves of capital worth several hundred million gold roubles. . .to carry out governmental work in general and in particular economic reconstruction.' It was 'only now,' in the context of the famine, that the hungry peasants would 'either be for us or at any rate neutral' in this 'ferocious' war against the Church; 'later on we will not succeed.' For this reason, continued Lenin:

"'I have come to the unequivocal conclusion that we must now wage the most decisive and merciless war against the Black Hundred clergy and suppress its resistance with such cruelty that they will not forget it for decades to come. . .The more members of the reactionary bourgeoisie and clergy we manage to shoot the better.'

"It has recently been estimated that 8,000 people were executed during this brutal campaign in 1922 alone. Patriarch Tikhon claimed to know of 10,000 priests in prison or exile, including about 100 bishops." ('A People's Tragedy, The Russian Revolution,' by Orlando Figes, pp. 748-749).

In spite of the spectacular failure of all prior atheist utopias, hope springs eternal. Atheist Sam Harris is confident that, this time, he knows how to get it right: concealt lie detectors in the wall panelling:

The Moral Landscape

French Revolution

Is the problem communism...or atheism itself? In the French Revolution, the first flush of Jacobin anti-Christian sentiment was atheistic rather than Deistic. Before the plundered and looted cathedrals of France became temples to a vaguely defined 'Supreme Being', they were proclaimed 'Temples of Reason': "Bearing a bust of Marat, the crowd marched to the Temple of Reason, the ertswhile cathedral, over whose portals were placed a large tricolor and a placard reading 'Light after darkness'...An orchestra played, and the gathering (alleged to number ten thousand) sang a 'Hymn to Nature':

"Mother of the Universe, eternal Nature,
The People acknowledges your power eternal;
On the pompous wreckage of ancient imposture
Its hands raise your altar..."

(Twelve Who Ruled, The Year of the Terror in the French Revolution, R.R. Palmer, p. 188)

Subsequently outspoken atheists like Hebert were obliged to recant, and Deism was installed as the official religion of the revolution. One must wonder, however, to what extent the atheism which was the fondest dream of the Jacobins contributed to the waste of human life that ensued.

Robespierre was enough of a practical politician to realize the difficulties involved in imposing state-sponsored atheism upon a heretofore Catholic populace and called a halt to the forcible Dechristianization program: "Some would go further. Under pretense of destroying superstition they would make a kind of religion of atheism itself...It will be said perhaps that I am narrow-minded, a man of prejudice, even a fanatic. I have already said that I spoke not as an individual or as a systematic philosopher, but as a representative of the people. Atheism is aristocratic; the idea of a great Being that watches over oppressed innocence and punishes triumphant crime is altogether popular." (Maximilien Robespierre, quoted in Twelve Who Ruled, The Year of the Terror in the French Revolution, R.R. Palmer, p. 121). Not that this retrenchment could deflect the momentum of the revolution; the killing had already started. Just as it would later, under Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Il Sung, on through the depressingly long list of atheist mass killers the twentieth century witnessed. Is there a counter-example, an officially atheistic regime which did not slaughter its people nor subvert their right to religious liberty?

Attentive atheists will note I'm presenting a circumstantial 'argumentum ad hominem,' as when one asks a critic of hunting whether he eats meat. While not a formally valid argument, these considerations will, it is hoped, focus critics' minds on intolerance as a debility of the old Adam. Atheists are justified in their focus on the shameful history of nominal Christianity, but overshoot in drawing their anti-Christian conclusions. Atrocities delegitimize those institutions, like the papacy, long associated with them, not a Holy Spirit known not to be associated with them.

Karl Marx	V. I. Lenin
Bhagat Singh	Mao Zedong
Pol Pot	Enver Hoxha
The Derg	Che Guevara
No True Atheist	Why?
Tu Quoque	Prince of Tyre
Atheist Armies

Atheist Killers