Has Christianity incited more terrorism than Islam?

[pervert]

I know I said I’d let you have the last word, but you asked some questions, so I’ll ry to answer.

*Originally posted by JThunder *
**No offense, but I think you still haven’t adequately substantiated your claims regarding the Catholic church **

I don’t think I made any specific claims about the catholic church. The side argument you and I have been having is simply over the idea that it is not even close to the most evil organization. And I am only objecting to the characterization that it is not even close. I am not claiming that it is the most evil. I’m not even claiming that it is in the top 2 or 3.

We would have to come to an agreement about how to measure such a thing as “most evil”. This thread is about terrorism, and your suggestion that the catholic church is not even close to the most evil is based primarily on the world record for mass murder. While I’m willing to conceed that the number of people murdered by recent regimes surpases anything done by any older tyrants, I’m not as sure that these statistics hold up when you compare them as percentages of populations. And the differences might be even less startling if you make allowances for changes in transportation technologies. For instance, Vlad the Impaler believed he was a defender of the church. Do you think he might have rated a higher ranking on the “most kills” scale if he had had similar technology or population to that available to the Pol Pot regime? And while he certainly wasn’t an official arm of the catholic church, he was more catholic than athiest. And, finally (in regards to the “most kills” scale) I think the method of killing has to be taken into account. Pol Pot and the Nazis were able to kill so many in such a short time partly because they used more efficient methods. But some of these methods made the deaths less painful. If for no other reason than they were shorter. While this is not the case for the tens of millions killed in the Ukrain by Stalin, I’m not sure even those deaths were as horrific as that suffered by the torture victims burned at the stake.

But even leaving all that aside, a catagory like most evil has to take other things than murder into account. What were the Dark Ages if not a time (of several centuries) when the Roman Catholic church’s influence kept much of the western world ignorant? Can we not lay some of the responsibility for the enslavement of an entire continent on the Caholics? (note here I am introducing a wholly new measure. A geographical one yet.)

And finally, we would have to come up with some way to determine what sort of groups qualify as ptentially “evil”. Does the fact that the Roman Catholic church has been one or two steps removed from actual civil government mean that it cannot be said to be “responsible” for many of the acts committed by those governments? I think this has to at least alleviate some responsibility. While at the same time it may mean that they simply never had the means to instigate a truly massive inquisition. <How’s that for waffling ;)>

As I said, I don’t think we are that far apart on this. I am probably making too much over a minor point of semantics (I tend to do that). I am not claiming that the Roman Catholic Church is the most evil institution. I’m certainly not claiming that it is responsible for more deaths than comunism. Nor am I trying to defend comunism in any way. I agree that I am doing a lot of verbal arm waving. The vague nature of the question (who is the most evil) almost necesitates it. All I am claiming is that the idea that catholicism is the most evil is not completely rediculous. At least for a certain value of “most evil”.

And just to try and give some evidence,

This list of mass killings is not extensive and does not break down the numbers by population totals, but does give more information than simply “world record” ;).

And this is a review of the 2000 apology by the pope for past sins of those “acting in the name of the church”.
which includes this quote:

“Hence it is appropriate that as the second millennium of Christianity draws to a close the Church should become ever more fully conscious of the sinfulness of her children, recalling all those times in history when they departed from the spirit of Christ and His Gospel and, instead of offering to the world the witness of a life inspired by the values of her faith, indulged in ways of thinking and acting which were truly forms of counter-witness and scandal. Although she is holy because of her incorporation into Christ, the Church does not tire of doing penance. Before God and man, she always acknowledges as her own her sinful sons and daughters.”

Anti Semitism is certainly a nasty thing. For which we can certianly thank the catholics.

The Jews are a nervous people. Nineteen centuries of Christian love have taken a toll." Benjamin Disraeli

Oddly enough, I cannot find very many treatises about pre 20th century mass muders.
This one, however, gives a good overview of pre 20th century “democide”.
Including this about the inquisition:

But there are other types of government killing that are routine or ritualistic and except for the more dramatic events may simply involve a few people killed in cold blood here, a few there, but across the land and years these numbers accumulate to a colossal slaughter. Such was the Catholic Church’s treatment of heretics, who were hunted and when allegedly found tortured, burned at the stake, or left to die of privation and disease in dungeons. During the Thirteenth Century Albigensian Crusade in France, for example, historians count 140 heretics burned to death at Minerva, 400 in Lavaur, 60 in Cass, 183 in Montwimer, 210-215 at MontsŽgur, and 80 in Barleiges. in the Roman arena at Verona, Italy, 200 heretics were burned at the stake.
The Spanish Inquisition established in 1480 by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella and that was led from 1483 to 1498 by the Dominican monk de Torquemada may have burned to death as many as 10,220 heretics in total; 125,000 possibly died from torture and privation in prison. A secretary of the inquisition says that no more than 4,000 were burned to death altogether. But in Seville alone this number of heretics may have been so killed. Perhaps a more realistic figure is that of the General Secretary of the Inquisition, who estimated that from 1480 to 1488, 8,800 people were killed by fire, and from 1480 to 1808 the victims may have totaled 31,912.99 During the most intensive years of the Inquisition about 500 people per year also may have been burned to death in the New World.

And this about “death by fire”

Note that many of these poor people were not simply killed. They died by a means "which was carefully selected as among the most poignant that man can suffer. They were usually burnt alive. They were burnt alive not infrequently by a slow fire. They were burnt alive after their constancy had been tried by the most excruciating agonies that minds fertile in torture could devise."

And finally this concerning translating the numbers ot modern terms:

Of all this pre-twentieth century, killing–massacres, infanticide, executions, genocides, sacrifices, burnings, deaths by mistreatment, and the like–that to which we can put numbers add up to a grand total of from near 89,000,000 to slightly over 260,000,000 million men, women, and children dead. An appropriate mid-democide estimate might be around 133,000,000 killed. […] To get some idea as to how far this total may be off, observe that if government massacred people in previous centuries in the same proportion to world population as in our century, then […the] hypothetical total (calculated from the 20th century democide rate derived in Death By Government and the world’s population for each century since 30 B.C.133) almost a fantastic 626,000,000 people would have been killed; even possibly over 1,138,000,000–over a billion people. As should be clear, an estimated pre-20th century democide of near 133,000,000 cannot even approximate the actual number murdered by governments or their surrogates, and probably reflects only a small fraction of those so wiped out during the thousands of years of written history.

[pervert]

*Originally posted by JS Princeton *
Since there are people of all creeds and beliefs who commit what would be deemed as terroristic acts, I think that to tie in religion with those actions is problematic.

I think this is certainly true. Especially since the only tie in that we seem to need is that claimed by the terrorist group in question.

“Al-Qaeda is to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity.” - paraphrased from an episode of West Wing*

It is interesting that we don’t talk about the KKK as “Christian Fundamentalists”, or “Christian Terrorists”. Somehow most people are able to make the distinction between the KKK’s claim of christianity and christianities’ disavowal of them. We have a greater difficulty seeing such a distinction between Al-Qaeda and Islam.

could it be that religious imagery lends itself to use by terrorists because it is appealing to the same emotions to which those who justify terrorism are trying to appeal?

Certainly this must be true for some of the emotions that terrorists feel. The smiting of the unrighteous, for instance must certainly ring a cord within the heart of any latent terrorist. This may simply be a side effect of religion attempting to explain everything, though. That is, it may simply be a result of the fact that so much is contained in any religious philosophy, that some of it will appeal to everybody.
*I know I’m ashamed of citing a TV program in here myself. But that’s where I saw it and I think it is most appropriate to this discussion.

[eponymous]

*Originally posted by JS Princeton *

It seems clear to me that religion has very little to do with the conditions that create terrorism, except that there are those trolls who incite institutional injustice and violence based on their ignorance and propaganda. It seems that one troll, in particular, in this thread might be prone to taking up a terroristic cause from the Christian side of the argument.

Since there are people of all creeds and beliefs who commit what would be deemed as terroristic acts, I think that to tie in religion with those actions is problematic. However, religious imagery is a popular metaphor used by those perpetrating terrorism.

Let me make a rather bold suggestion: could it be that religious imagery lends itself to use by terrorists because it is appealing to the same emotions to which those who justify terrorism are trying to appeal?

JS Princeton,

Not so bold - may I suggest that you check out the following book by Jessica Stern:

Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill

It may or may not be relevant, but I think you’ll find much food for thought.

[pervert]

*Originally posted by Soup_du_jour *
Well, I was partly referring to Mr Bush’s repeated assertions that Mr Hussein “spread Terror through his people,” “ruled through Terror,” and so on. Granted, he didn’t come right out and say it, but that’s what he implied. (I doubt he was attempting a reference to the Palestinian Suicide Bombers Hussin was subsidizing.)

You’d have to give me a cite to interpret more precisely, but If he was talking about Saddam’s tyranny of his people, then I’m not sure that fits the definition of terrorism. Even if those actions cause fear. Even if those actions are intended to cause fear. The definition seems to include the term “Illegal”. So it seems that governments cannot commit terrorism on their own populations unless they have laws against it and ignore them.

As someone else pointed out, there are other words which cover this.

[pervert]

*Originally posted by flycow *
**You mean like the US sponsoring militia inside Nicaragua to pick just one of too many examples?
**

Well, I think that the filibusters of the late 19th century are a better example, but maybe.

[MEBuckner]

Originally posted by monty2_2001
here’s the “peace” you morons love so much:

Moderator’s Note: Don’t call people “morons” in Great Debates.

Monty2_2001, you definitely need to straighten up very quickly, got it?

[flycow]

I would like everybody who participates in this discussion to visit the following page.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0311/S00006.htm

By rhe way, scoop.co.nz is a great news site, especially for people who suffer from the one sided world view the US media propagates.
They were one of the few sites to run the news that before the start of the Iraq conflict, Sweden had offered political asylum to CIA agents and their families who wanted to tell the truth.

[Guinastasia]

*Originally posted by Brutus *
**How many civilians have been killed by terrorism in N.Ireland? **

Please tell me you’re asking this because you want to know, and not because you don’t believe that civilians have been killed by terrorism in Northern Ireland.

Like, ever heard of something called the IRA?

[Brutus]

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
**Please tell me you’re asking this because you want to know, and not because you don’t believe that civilians have been killed by terrorism in Northern Ireland.

Like, ever heard of something called the IRA? **

Uh, ok. I am asking this because I want to know.

I have heard of the ‘IRA’, and I was thinking of opening a (Roth) IRA. Never too early to start thinking about the future!

[Guinastasia]

Sorry, I thought you were being sarcastic. Fair enough.

[Brutus]

Aarrghh! I thought you were holding out on the answer! Googling isn’t much help…

[Buran]

Brutus.

I answered above. About 3700.

[DeepDownTraumaHound]

…which doesn’t require cites.