Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
As the body count for American soldiers hits 4000 (not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqis, but for some reason most Americans don't seem to think they count on the balance sheet, and not to mention the tens of thousands of wounded Americans, many of whom have had their entire life shattered), some on the right are reaching for the most ridiculous rationalizations for it. The latest meme: "Only 4000? But many more have been killed in totally unrelated ways throughout history." How this might justify those deaths is left unspoken, of course; no one is going to actually try to make a coherent argument for that conclusion. Here's what one conservative rationalizes away those deaths:
Below are a list of deaths from both war and regimes.1. Under Mao Se Tung from 1949 to 1975 an estimated 27 to 72 million perished.
2. Under Hitler from 1933 to 1945, 15-25 million.
3. Under Japan from 1930 to 1945, approximately 30 million.
4. Under the Arab slave trade 6-21 million from the 3rd to the 21st Century.
5. During WWII, 30-60 million.
6. Vietnam between 1954 and 1975, 2-5 million.
7. Abortions since Roe v. Wade, approximately 35 million babies.
The above deaths were due in part or whole to socialist, communistic or pure leftist ideology.
Stunning, isn't it? An absolutely idiotic position. He could have made an actual argument to justify this particular war and those deaths. He could have tried to argue that there was a geo-strategic goal at stake that justifies those deaths. He could have argued that rescuing the Iraqi people from a brutal thug like Hussein justifies those deaths. Hell, I would even be inclined to accept that premise; sometimes blood must be spilled to end injustice.
But he didn't do that. All he did was list other completely unrelated events in which far more people were killed. By that "logic" one could just decide to go to MacRanger's home town and kill everyone there and when he demanded a justification for it, we could just show him his list. Far more people died in other events in history, that's the same argument he's making. Somehow I doubt he would apply his own "reasoning" in other circumstances. Only a lunatic would.
Then he makes this bizarre statement:
Since 2003, 6 million Americans died from various causes, unknown how many were liberals, but being that science has connected a negative pessimistic attitude to premature death I would say it's in the majority.
If anyone has the first fucking clue what this dolt is raving about here, please explain it. That looks a lot like word salad. And does it need to be pointed out that the STACLU crowd thinks he's on to something?
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
Yeah, a brilliant argument. Tell the mother of one of those 4000 that her son's death is OK because Stalin killed more people. Then get ready to duck. I wonder if any of these Clueless Keyboard Warriors would have the guts to make that dumbass argument to a room full of parents, spouses, and sibligs of dead soldiers. Something tells me no.
Posted by: Dan | March 27, 2008 9:27 AM
The slave trade was invented by 3rd-century Arab communists?
Posted by: Jeffrey Kramer | March 27, 2008 9:31 AM
Oh man, where did he get this stuff? I love how he insists all of those bad people he mentioned are socialist or leftist or whatever. Someone's been reading the Doughy Pantload. My personal favorite irony in that list is imperial Japan. Communists were the biggest bugaboo back then for right-wingers and moderates alike. I love his choices. What, did he choose them at random by dropping his encyclopedia?
Posted by: Flying Fox | March 27, 2008 9:33 AM
"The above deaths were due in part or whole to socialist, communistic or pure leftist ideology."
Hitler was none of these. What a moron!
Posted by: Paul T. | March 27, 2008 9:33 AM
Also absurd is the fact that he included Hitler, Japan, WWII as a whole, and 1,800 years of Arab slave trade under "socialist, communistic or pure leftist ideology."
Posted by: Wes | March 27, 2008 9:37 AM
So his argument boils down to:
"Bush/Cheney: Not as bad as Hilter"
Posted by: Ashley Moore | March 27, 2008 9:49 AM
Hell, Osama bin Laden could say the same thing about the 9/11 attack, right? That was just a couple of thousand dead bodies--why is everyone making such a fuss?
What a maroon.
Posted by: Scott Simmons | March 27, 2008 9:52 AM
Ashley wrote:
Brilliant. That needs to be made into a bumper sticker. Wonder if the STACLU folks would sell it?
Posted by: Dan | March 27, 2008 9:55 AM
All acts of genocide before the 20th Century were by the hands of right-wingers, e.g. kings, emperors, and religious leaders (with the exception, in part, of what happened during the French Revolution).
Even Mao and Stalin, by dint of being paranoid psychopaths (kill all who disagree)fall into my definition of extreme off the edge right-wingers, that is, they didn't permit dissent.
Posted by: Rod | March 27, 2008 9:56 AM
You mean I can lie, cheat, and steal and as long as I'm not the worst in history to do it I get a free pass? This changes everything! Martha, get my gun, we're going shopping.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 27, 2008 10:00 AM
Well, he's blaming Commies, so that should probably be: "Not as bad as Stalin." Yeah I know, trying to insert logic into an "argument" like that is pissing into the wind.
Posted by: WScott | March 27, 2008 10:01 AM
As it happens, I am in the middle of watching Ken Burn's World War II documentary. One of the more poignant threads in that story was about a young man named Babe Ciarlo from Waterbury, Connecticut who was killed at Anzio 5 days before his 21st birthday. They were interviewing two of his siblings and, even 60 years hence, their grief was still present. All I could think was that there are 4000 families who will have to carry the same despair with them through their lives and for what? A war that served no purpose but to stroke the vanity of it's imcompetent architects.
Posted by: carlsonjok | March 27, 2008 10:01 AM
There's stupidity from both directions on this. The objectors who parade the number 4,000 as if that were somehow a meaningful measure of the war set up this kind of equally absurd rejoinder from the right. There are all sorts of human endeavors that involve people dying. The most dangerous occupation in the US isn't being a soldier, but commercial fishing. Does that mean we should stop eating fish? No, of course not. And some one who posts a running death toll of sailors lost at sea is not making a cogent argument against eating fish. In terms of sheer numbers, our roads kill far more Americans than the war in Iraq ever will. Does that mean we should ban cars? There are too many against the Iraq war who seem to think that simply pointing to a death toll that has gone from 2,000 to 3,000 to 4,000 is somehow an argument against the war. It isn't. It is simply a death toll. It says very little about the war, good or bad, until some context has been put around it and an argument made using it. The objectors who act as if that number in itself were an argument pave the way for Coulter and company to provide that.
Posted by: Russell | March 27, 2008 10:02 AM
Oh yeah, well none of those events are bad when you look at the whole of earth history.
K/T extinction 50% of all species kicked the bucket. The Permian extinction 96% of marine species and 70% of land species were no more. And for all the bible folks out there, Noah's flood killed all but 8. Therefor we can not possibly due anything wrong, because nature or God has done so much worse in the past.
Posted by: Thoracantha | March 27, 2008 10:02 AM
Number of people who have died: 60 billion. It's just as meaningful a statistic, and a much more impressive number (though admittedly a rough estimate).
Posted by: Taz | March 27, 2008 10:08 AM
Thoracantha beat me to it!
Posted by: Taz | March 27, 2008 10:10 AM
Err, I believe the point is that they're dying for no good reason.
Posted by: Gretchen | March 27, 2008 10:13 AM
I think liberals and others who oppose this administration, which includes me, would be much more effective arguing that the President would probably would have still gained some significant political support for his plan if he had predicted 4000 American deaths to go along with his $50 billion budget and 3 month time-line in the build-up to war.
Given where we are today however, I think the superior political argument against President Bush, post-invasion, is that there is no way he would have had any support pre-invasion, and certainly deserves zero support now given the reality of our continued occupation, which is less military capabilities against other enemies, like al Qaeda, a decrease in our soft power in the world, fodder that better justifies radical reactions by Islamo-fascists, and most importantly, by far, is having us borrowing trillions of dollars against our children's future tax liabilities.
We can use conservative arguments against this President, making it much more difficult for him to manuever. The fact is, 4000 deaths is a relatively small casaulty count for the size of our operation; the other reality is that his war is probably our biggest fiasco for reasons dear to conservsatives, I say attack them on their own ideological planks.
While I realize my points have been reported, I think it's a mistake we focus on the number of deaths more than these items in making arguments for occupation, that's preaching to the choir. If we want converts, hit them on their hot points, that's where conservatives are vulnerable on this issue: fiscal recklessness, weakened military, weakened influence, and virtually ignoring those that hit us on 9/11.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 27, 2008 10:25 AM
Religious war (30 yrs war) + c30% rural and c50% urban popul;ation,
Non-religious war (WWII) = 7% population.
Explain. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 27, 2008 10:31 AM
> Hell, Osama bin Laden could say the same thing about the
> 9/11 attack, right? That was just a couple of thousand dead
> bodies--why is everyone making such a fuss?
Well put.
Of course it only takes one crippled soldier to ask him a meaningful question about this in a public forum and the video to go on YouTube and his career is in a world of trouble...
Posted by: David Durant | March 27, 2008 10:36 AM
"Bush/Cheney: Not as bad as Hilter"
Yeah, that's a bold and stunning boast to be sure. Are they "more sober than a weasel on PCP" too, or is that too much to ask in one day?
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 27, 2008 10:37 AM
If we're going to pick holes (and indeed we are) then I believe the accepted English transliteration of the erstwhile Chinese dictator's name is in fact Mao Zedong. Also, war is bad, m'kay?
Posted by: philbert | March 27, 2008 10:40 AM
"4. Under the Arab slave trade 6-21 million from the 3rd to the 21st Century."
hmmm....awww shucks....but what about....(gulp)...the American slave trade? Those damn left winger commies really did good there.
Posted by: Royale | March 27, 2008 10:47 AM
Gretchen:
The problem is that pointing to the death toll in itself doesn't make, support, or even state that point. It often seems a poor substitute for any of that.
Posted by: Russell | March 27, 2008 10:55 AM
Charles Manson - 8 killings. The man was a saint.
Posted by: Dr X | March 27, 2008 10:56 AM
Russell said:
I don't believe that anyone citing the death toll thinks that the number in itself determines whether the invasion was a mistake or not. What they are pointing out is that the mounting death toll represents exactly how costly that mistake is. It's easier to shrug off a presidential "oopsie" if you don't have a stack of bodies and a line of wounded soldiers hanging around as a result. The bodies and injuries are a reminder of the cost of a president lying to his country as a pretext to go to "war" (which I put in scare quotes because, of course, we're technically not at war. Doesn't seem to stop people from dying, though).
Posted by: Gretchen | March 27, 2008 11:14 AM
Posted by: Taz | March 27, 2008 12:20 PM
"not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqis"
Actually, the Iraqi death toll is almost certainly in the several hundred thousands, with the upper end of the uncertainty near a million, according to the survey-based studies undertaken there.
Couple this with some 4.5 million internal or external refugees, in a country with a population of about 27 million or so, and you're looking at about 1 of 5 Iraqis either dead or displaced.
Yes, those numbers are stunning, massive, and I find them hard to believe too. But that is what the data says, and one can find corroborating evidence in things like the ethnic composition of Baghdad over time, where neighborhoods are being systematically purged and made ethnically homogeneous.
Tim Lambert has been presenting the evidence for this over at Deltoid blog, as ti comes in over the last couple years.
Posted by: Lee | March 27, 2008 12:36 PM
Hey, if you can simply drop all the things you disapprove of into a big fuzzy category called 'things-me-no-like" then your world is a much simpler place.
Posted by: carey | March 27, 2008 12:38 PM
Aw, stop whining you god-hating atheist liberal commie Nazis.
We have millions of deaths to go before Iraq is even a blip on the radar screen. (American deaths, that is. Iraqi deaths don't count.) That means we can stay there for hundreds of years if need be!
See? Bush is vindicated because the Iraq invasion will turn out to not be the greatest single cause of death in human history.
Posted by: ZacharySmith | March 27, 2008 12:47 PM
Posted by: llewelly | March 27, 2008 1:36 PM
The last quote is ridiculous. Science has been used for the good by many and for the bad by a few. It is like guns to me. Is it the guns fault someone is nuts? To blame all societies social ills on "liberals" does not address the issues at hand in this world. As your post on the Saudi king so eloguently points out, religious people kill too.
But I do have to ask the same question I posed to you before: Why is it that you seem to deny that Mao and Stalin's atheism was at least part of their motives in what they did? I am not saying all atheists are bad people. I am not saying all liberals are bad people. I am ackwoledging that many many people have been killed in the name of God and religion. Why does it seem to me that you ignore when it is done in the name of atheism? Evolution does not necesarily make someone an atheist and not all atheists grow up to kill millions of people. In fact, most atheists never kill anyone.
But ideologies that have atheism as one of their core tenets have killed people. It has done it in China to the Tibetans. To ignore this is to ignore part of their struggle for human rights. I know you care about human rights but I think you are blinded at times by the polarization of this debate. I am not saying do not teach evolution(read my last post under the creation museum post) and am saying lets look at what some people have done with this theory when taken to assinine conclusions. You seem to not want to do that for some reason. I am not attacking you I just think your not consistent on this one. Which is surprising considering how consistent you usually are on many issues.
Ofcourse I could be mistating what you are saying. If I am I apologize.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 27, 2008 2:21 PM
Why is it that you seem to deny that Mao and Stalin's atheism was at least part of their motives in what they did?
IF atheism was "a part" of their motives, it wasn't a very significant part. Here's why I believe this: first, Mao and Stalin were not the first indiscriminately brutal tyrants to rule either country -- Stalin had a lot in common with several previous Tsars, and Mao had a lot in common with previous Emperors; and second, while Stalin, Mao, and their governments may have been atheist, most of the people whose support was indispensible for their continued power were not, at least not to greater degree than they were under previous tyrants.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 27, 2008 2:46 PM
Since 2003, 6 million Americans died from various causes, unknown how many were liberals, but being that science has connected a negative pessimistic attitude to premature death I would say it's in the majority.
Ed wrote:
The writer is apparently referring to common belief that a positive attitude makes you healthier, and can even help to heal cancer. This is particularly popular in alternative medicine circles, and takes on a mystical flavor. However, it doesn't seem to be true, scientifically speaking:
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=38
From what I can tell it has nothing really to do with the subject, other than a jab at liberals being grouchy quick-dying kill-joys who refuse to look at the BRIGHT SIDE of 4,000 soldiers dead in an unnecessary war -- mainly, that old stand by:
"Cheer up, could have been worse."
Posted by: Sastra | March 27, 2008 2:53 PM
KOI:
Why is it that you seem to deny that Mao and Stalin's atheism was at least part of their motives in what they did?
I'm not sure whom you're addressing here. Ed? Some previous commenter on this thread? Atheists in general? It's always good to clarify such things.
But assuming that your question is directed at atheists in general, I think we need to differentiate between personal atheism (which characterizes my beliefs) and state-imposed atheism (characteristic of the regimes of Stalin and Mao). It would be just as inappropriate to compare a Christian such as yourself to a Christianist theocratic dictator (and there are many such examples from history) as it would be to compare myself to Chairman Mao. Secondly, even if Mao or Stalin's atheistic views contributed to the atrocities that they committed, you cannot ignore the fact that far more atrocities have been committed across time in the name of religion than in the name of a lack of religion. This is not to say that religion is inherently or necessarily an evil; I'm simply turning your question on its head.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 27, 2008 3:28 PM
Ed I actually agree with you there, I dont like comparisons of this type. Every war is diffrent and this one is unlike any we have faced in the past. While I make no secret to my support of and participation in the Iraq war there are plenty of positive arguments to be made (like you pointed out) to show your support other than look at how many died in other wars.
If you love freedom thank a vet!!
Posted by: AFSGTSAM | March 27, 2008 3:29 PM
Ed, I don't see where you are getting that the guy is trying to "justify" the war by comparing the casualty count to other wars. I think he is presenting the casualty numbers in an effort to put it in PERSPECTIVE with other wars through history. He says that the casualty count is "phenomenally small" compared to other wars. I think he is making this point because lefties who oppose the war often use over-the-top rhetoric to push for an end to the war. The stuff at the end of his post sounds to me like pure hyperbole, but he is right that many of the events he lists can be traced to "socialist, communistic or pure leftist ideology." I would say that Mao, Hitler, and abortion can be traced to leftist ideology. Some of you may disagree with my assertion about Hitler, but a perusal of "The Road to Serfdom" - a classic - might change the mind of the honest reader. I think Japan's WWII ambitions could at least be traced to the evils of centralized power - something that is very evident in socialistic regimes. If Japan was a democratic society where government authorities did not have a blank check to start wars, maybe they would not have done so. Our nation used to be like that, that's why the Founders insisted that the people's representatives actually declared war before we got into one. Congress has neglected that responsibility and implicitly given absolute discretion to the president to start wars. How many undeclared wars have we had in the last 100 years? This is the result of the centralization of power, and likely would not have happened had the people not allowed their representatives to surrender war-making authority to the president. This kind of centralization is a hallmark of socialism and that is why I would say that even Japan's ambitions in WWII were the result of ideologies that were somewhat similar to socialist ideologies in some respects.
And just so you guys know where I am coming from, I think the war was a mistake, but I do think we need to finish the job right since we are in it.
Posted by: mroberts | March 27, 2008 3:37 PM
Ragging Bee stated:
Mao and Stalin were not the first indiscriminately brutal tyrants to rule either country -- Stalin had a lot in common with several previous Tsars, and Mao had a lot in common with previous Emperors; and second, while Stalin, Mao, and their governments may have been atheist, most of the people whose support was indispensible for their continued power were not, at least not to greater degree than they were under previous tyrants.
I will have to think about this. For sure, the other guys you talk about here were "religious" and used religion to oppress. But I still look at the heart of the Marxist ideology as being, if not atheist, certainly anti-religious oppressive. I may have used poor word choose here.
Look I do make a distinction between anti-religious sentiments that do not become more fanatic than the systems that they were designed to replace in their proselytising by force and anti-religious sentiments that come from the angle of live and let live. I actually share many of the sentiments of the latter group. Mao and current China are the former. It is getting better overthere but human rights are still be violated.
To be fair though Tibetans that convert to Christianity have more to fear from their own monks than the Chinese. This is a well established fact. So the Tibetan leaders are often hypocritical when they ask for human rights. They do not extend them when the are in the majority. Like most people. That is why our form of Republican government that protects the rights of the minority is so good. Relgion tends to become oppressive when unchecked by deliniated rights.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 27, 2008 3:38 PM
King of Ireland wrote:
And I give you the same answer I gave before: atheism is not a belief system. It is nothing more than the absence of belief in god. Atheism makes no positive claims whatsoever, it does not require assent to any political or moral position on any issue whatsoever. One can lack belief in god and take every possible position on any other issue - including the position that belief in god is important and ought to be encouraged (that is the position taken by philosopher Leo Strauss and many of his followers). Because there is no actual cognitive content to atheism, it cannot possibly be viewed as leading logically to any other claim because it is consistent with every possible claim.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 27, 2008 3:48 PM
Well, I would say that atheism is consistent with every possible claim except the claim of belief in God (or gods).
Posted by: Adrienne | March 27, 2008 4:07 PM
Well, I would say that atheism is consistent with every possible claim except the claim of belief in God (or gods).
Posted by: Adrienne | March 27, 2008 4:07 PM
While I won't deny that it's possible that pure anti-religious sentiment was part of it, I'm betting that the real motivation behind trying to exterminate religion is that a strong religious community (or, frankly, any large, well organized population of people with common ideology) is a threat to any government that wants absolute power.
If I was going to set up a repressive dictatorship, you can bet that I'd be trying to dismantle any church large enough to be a threat, or at least creating a watered down version of religion to keep people happy. It would have nothing to do with philosophy. It would be all about keeping people from unifying under any ideology that might conflict with my policies. I'd probably go down in history as a militant atheist when in reality, I just had the type of healthy paranoia that keeps an evil dictator in power.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | March 27, 2008 4:11 PM
Oh damn, sorry for the double post.
Posted by: Adrienne | March 27, 2008 4:12 PM
King of Ireland:
Neither atheism NOR theism are "belief systems," because the categories are too general. What single belief system is the result of believing in God? None.
The Aztec Sun-God worshiper, the Born Again Christian, the Hindu, the Amish, the Transcendentalist, the Wiccan, the Quaker, the Voo-doo priestess, the Catholic priest, the Muslim, the Satanist, and the charming person who broad-mindedly claims "Oh, I believe EVERY God is real and so I belong to ALL the religions all at ONCE!" do not share any kind of "system." There are just too many different kinds of Gods, with too many different kinds of natures and commands: too many different kinds of religions to lump them all together and get any significant predictions on behaviors or stances out of it.
If you want to talk about a religious "belief system" you have to get more specific and narrow it down. What do the Hindus believe? What rituals do Theosophists have? How is a Mennonite community set up? What are Scientologists allowed to do when they get sick?
I mean, even Christians don't follow a single "system." You certainly can't lump atheists together as having a similar ideology.
Posted by: Sastra | March 27, 2008 4:13 PM
Troublesome Frog said:
Actually it'd be "smarter" to set up a replacement religion with many of the same elements as the predominant, pre-existing one, substituting a few key elements with ones the perpetuate the leader personally as the center of the religion. That way the overlord leverages the power of belief with himself as its embodiment, giving him both secular and divine authority. Like the Pharaoh God-Kings.
Co-opting is almost always a better long-term strategy than attempted elimination -- it's very hard to completely stamp out a belief system, you can pervert it much more easily.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | March 27, 2008 4:20 PM
"Stunning, isn't it? An absolutely idiotic position.."
Really, doesn't he know it's the quality, not the quantity?
Posted by: bullet | March 27, 2008 4:24 PM
KOI: "Why is it that you seem to deny that Mao and Stalin's atheism was at least part of their motives in what they did?"
Do you mean motive or factor? If you are saying that these two killed religious activists because they opposed their political movements you have to distinguish whether that religious activism was seen as purely religious or political opposition by either Mao or Stalin. How do you separate the Communism from the atheism as a political motive? Or vice-versa? Because religion is a powerful cohesive movement that could supersede the designs of a purely collective political movement the motives of Mao or Stalin could be purely political, and that politic can exist with or without atheism. So to say that the atheism is, in an of itself, the motivating factor is an assumption that one need not make.
If you are asking if atheism lacks moral restrictions that lead to the kinds of slaughter Stalin and Mao were guilty of, than your admission that such slaughter has also been done in the name of religion shows the futility of that argument.
Look, you can make three arguments: Stalin and Mao killed in part because they were atheists. Stalin and Mao killed in part because they were communists. Stalin and Mao killed in part because they were psychopaths in power. Each argument has a certain likelihood. My money is on the third as the most likely factor, and the argument that power corrupts. Because of Ed's statements above, I think atheism is the least likely, if not non-, factor.
Posted by: B8ovin | March 27, 2008 4:26 PM
If you love freedom, thank someone who votes against fascist warmongerers.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 27, 2008 4:39 PM
Read Christopher Hitchens' reporting on North Korea (or youtube videos work too, I think that's where I saw it, though I couldn't link it right now). Same concept happening in the world right now.
Posted by: paul | March 27, 2008 5:12 PM
>> Because of Ed's statements above, I think atheism is the least likely, if not non-, factor.
This is going to be an unpopular statement on this board, but I think all three contributed significantly. Power and authority were concentrated in Mao and Stalin - the first big issue. If nations want to remain free - and if they have a choice over the type of government they want to live under - they will select a system where power is spread out across multiple authorities. This is a big reason why I don't like socialism - it tends to concentrate power into the hands of a few people. Our Founders understood the dangers of centralized power, that is why they created the system of checks and balances between the branches, and even further diluted governmental authority through the system of federalism. For the sake of this argument, I am going to come from the point of view of a Christian, and my references to God are going to refer to the God of the Bible. Consequently, the morality I will refer to is the Judeo-Christian morality. Now, I would argue that if a ruler has absolute power over his people, he is even more dangerous if he believes there is no God. Why? Because if he has nobody else to answer to (he has absolute power) he is the highest authority in his land. After all, if there is nobody else to answer to, what standard is there to govern his actions? The moral standard to which he adheres is whatever he makes it; law and morality are whatever he decides they are. I would argue that a leader that believes in God will also believe he is bound by God's authority and answerable to it in the afterlife. Such a leader, while certainly not uncorruptible, is less likely to exercise his authority in an arbitrary manner because he knows that he will be held to account for his actions after he dies. This is why I believe - and this is going to irritate some of you I know - that, all other things the same, a devout Christian ruler that believes he is subject to God's laws would rule in a more restrained manner than an atheist one.
Posted by: mroberts | March 27, 2008 5:13 PM
King -
Will yous please stop conflating evolution and atheism. They are not the same thing. They're not even the same type of thing. If you have any evidence that what Stalin and Mao did, they did because they "took evolution to asinine conclusions" then present it. And then explain Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan. A tyrant must have something to inspire his followers. It could be the promise of wealth or power, it could be fear, or it could be a motivating ideology. Religion is a much more effective motivator than atheism.By the way, thanks for acknowledging that most atheists don't kill people. We've come a long way, baby! /sarcasm
Posted by: Taz | March 27, 2008 5:15 PM
mroberts-
That knife cuts both ways. If such a ruler is convinced that god wants him to "exercise his authority in an arbitrary manner" as you put it, then not only is there nothing holding him back, but he is positively obligated to do so. And please don't try to claim that no self professed "good Christian leader" would come to such a conclusion. History doesn't support that conclusion. How do explain religious wars, even between different Christian sects? Also, such a leader can dehumanize other people because they don't subscribe to his religion. Much of what was done to Native Americans was justified this way.Posted by: Taz | March 27, 2008 5:33 PM
mroberts wrote:
That's a lovely little theory, but history clearly disproves it. Name me a single Christian government that maintained anything even close to the notions of liberty that grew out of Enlightenment thinking. Calvin's Geneva, where Michael Servetus was burned at the stake for heresy? Any of the European monarchies that were explicitly based on the divine right of kings, where the King was beholden only to God and ruled at the whim of God? We had a revolutionary war to overthrow such a Christian ruler. The first part of your post is correct; the key to maintaining a free society is limiting the power of government. But history provides not a shred of support for the idea that dictatorial power is exercised any more morally by religious men than by irreligious men. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely; centuries of Christian kings and dictators shows conclusively that belief in God does nothing to prevent that corruption. Indeed, as Pascal observed, never do men do evil so thoroughly as when they do it from religious conviction.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 27, 2008 5:52 PM
Actually, Stalin and Mao purported to believe in a philosophy called dialectical materialism which is much like a religion in that it is belief in the absence of evidence.
Re mroberts and KOI
There is no evidence that belief in a religion make a ruler more moral. In fact, the ruler may take the position that mass murder has in fact been called for by the deity. Some examples follow.
1. According to the Hebrew bible, after the walls of Jericho fell, Joshua marched into the city and put the residents therein, mostly Canaanites, to the sword, acting on Yahwehs' instructions.
2. When the Christian crusaders took the City of Jerusalem during the first crusade, they put the residents therein, mostly Muslims and Jews, to the sword.
3. When the Catholic army took the City of Magdeburg during the 30 years war, they put the residents therein, mostly Protestants, to the sword.
These are only three examples of atrocities committed by allegedly religious individuals. History is filled with numerous other examples.
Posted by: SLC | March 27, 2008 6:09 PM
mroberts, a small favor, please:
Divide your posts into paragraphs to make them easier to read. My eyes are not so good, and when there are many many lines in a paragraph I have to move a sheet of paper down the screen to help me see one line at a time without the words running together.
I don't always read what you post because it's so time-consuming for me, but I'd like to. So just tap that Enter key from time to time if you would.
Posted by: JuliaL | March 27, 2008 6:51 PM
mroberts,
" I would argue that a leader that believes in God will also believe he is bound by God's authority and answerable to it in the afterlife. Such a leader, while certainly not uncorruptible, is less likely to exercise his authority in an arbitrary manner because he knows that he will be held to account for his actions after he dies."
In actual practice, a leader should be more concerned about the consequences of his acts for the quality of life of his subjets and how he will be remembered in history, than the consequences of his acts for the quality of his own hypothetical after life.
It is quite remarkable that the same can be said in more general terms, when people are more obsessed with their dreams of an after life, than with the consequences of their acts for their fellow human beings.
Posted by: negentropyeater | March 27, 2008 7:29 PM
As long as God doesn't tell him anything that he might interpret as a mandate to start wars and slaughter people. Fortunately, history shows us that such a thing could never, ever happen.
The lesson we should learn from history is simple: Belief in a deity is a good way of getting people to do things that they might not otherwise do in the absence of that belief. Whether those things are "good" or "bad" is an entirely orthogonal matter.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | March 27, 2008 9:37 PM
mroberts said:
What about the flip side to this coin? Wouldn't it be *much* worse if a ruler thinks God wants him to have absolute power over his people? Else, why else would God make him ruler? And wouldn't it be worse if the people who are oppressed also believe this is God's will?
I would argue that if you were an oppressed population that doesn't believe in God, you realize that no matter how horrible and brutal your ruler is, he's just a man. And it's always easier to overthrow a man than an entire religious establishment and all the stigma both in this life and possibly the next that goes with that.
That is what actually pisses my off about Bush. He's always talking about Freedom is a gift from God. No, it's not. Freedom is a gift men give themselves, men in this case being mankind, not just males. Only men can give it and only men can give it away if they're not careful. Saying freedom is the domain of God is essentially waiting for your manager to give you a promotion while working a crappy job. Maybe he will and maybe he won't, but you're taking the back seat in your own life.
Posted by: MyPetSlug | March 27, 2008 10:36 PM
"So his argument boils down to:
"Bush/Cheney: Not as bad as Hilter""
So for years now I've been using a variation on that "America: Not as Bad as North Korea".
Posted by: Ian Gould | March 28, 2008 8:41 AM
"He says that the casualty count is "phenomenally small" compared to other wars."
Which other wars?
US Casualties
Spanish-American War: 3,289
Gulf War: 294
Korean War: 36,516
Mexican American War: 13,271
War of 1812 6,765
The American casualties in the Iraq war have been smaller than in World War II but they're not "phenomenally small" compared to other small-scale US wars.
That 4,000 figure also omits "contractors", allied troops, civilian government employees and the undisclosed number of military personnel flown out of Iraq to die of their wounds in Germany or the US so they weren't included the official death toll.
Posted by: Ian Gould | March 28, 2008 8:57 AM
This may have been discussed before in this thread, but the 4,000 casualties as "low" may rather be a testament to battlefield medicine.
The 50k+ American combat deaths in Vietnam would have been a lot higher but for the advent of the helicopter and battlefield techniques. I figure something similar would be applicable here.
That said, preventing deaths is great and all, but we cannot forget that oftentimes pushes the soldiers into other categories: maimed for life, PSTD, or hidden/latent injuries (i.e., Gulf War syndrome).
Posted by: Royale | March 28, 2008 9:05 AM
Sadie,
I was commenting to Ed but as always it is to anyone in general. I acknowledged in many comments exactly what you have said about Religion. I believe it hypocritical to point out one and not the other. I think at times Ed borders on doing this. That is my point.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 28, 2008 11:57 AM
Ed,
Step back with me away from the whole Science debate. I actually think I agree with you on most of it. I am not trying to trap you. If you step back for a second and understand what I am asking you here then you will actually answer my question. Whatever atheism is, it was a huge part of what Marx stood for. I think the same can be said for others that put into practice some of his theories. Are you denying this or just the unbalanced use of these facts in debates over Science and Culture?
I like what Sadie so eloquently stated above:
"But assuming that your question is directed at atheists in general, I think we need to differentiate between personal atheism (which characterizes my beliefs) and state-imposed atheism (characteristic of the regimes of Stalin and Mao). It would be just as inappropriate to compare a Christian such as yourself to a Christianity theocratic dictator (and there are many such examples from history) as it would be to compare myself to Chairman Mao."
I agree whole-heartedly and am on the record acknowledging the hypocrisy of not mentioning both sides of this. It is my assertion that Ed, at least, borders on doing this. Here is my case for what I have stated about militant atheism on many posts and more specifically its implications for Tibetans under Chinese rule. I think most people would grant that Mao followed many of the same ideas and practices that Stalin and company so I did not take time to find quotes attributed to him but I can if people would like.
Here is a quote by Engels:
"We want to sweep away everything that claims to be supernatural and superhuman, and thereby get rid of untruthfulness, for the root of all untruth and Lying is the pretension of the human and the natural to be superhuman and supernatural. For that reason we have once and for all declared war on religion and religious ideas and care little whether we are called atheists or anything else." Collected Works of Marx and Engels Volume 3 p. 463
Now I am not going to do what others(Christians who quote this out of context in books that I have seen) would do and not admit the context here. He was talking about Religion and how it was used by the Aristocracy to oppress people. I also know at the time that the Industrial class was beginning to unite with the clergy to use religion to bring about order in society and this is probably the historical context of these remarks. There main problem was the use of religion to oppress people. I think it a noble cause, in general, as well.
But with that said, Marx and Engels definitely believed that Revolution was not only advisable but inevitable to carry out their goals. I think even the most casual reading of either man will render what I stated true here. But that is a general statement. So I will give them the benefit of the doubt here and say that it is possible that they would not use force to bring about the "sweeping away" of not only religion but the supernatural. He was arguing here against allowing pantheists to call themselves atheists. I think this was to differentiate his idea of socialism from the more religious British version.
So lets see how the theories of Marx and Engels were continued by later Communists
Lenin:
"Our Programme is based entirely on the scientific, and moreover the materialist, world-outlook. An explanation of our Programme, therefore, necessarily includes an explanation of the true historical and economic roots of the religious fog. Our propaganda necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism; the publication of the appropriate scientific literature, which the autocratic feudal government has hitherto strictly forbidden and persecuted, must now form one of the fields of our Party work. We shall now probably have to follow the advice Engels once gave to the German Socialists: to translate and widely disseminate the literature of the eighteenth-century French Enlighteners and atheists." Collected Works of Lenin Volume 10
To balance this let me use another Lenin quote:
"Religion must be declared a private affair. In these words socialists usually express their attitude towards religion. But the meaning of these words should be accurately defined to prevent any misunderstanding. We demand that religion be held a private affair so far as the state is concerned. But by no means can we consider religion a private affair so far as our Party is concerned. Religion must be of no concern to the state, and religious societies must have no connection with governmental authority. Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule." Collected Works of Lenin Volume 10
To add more context another quote of Lenin:
"So far as the party of the socialist proletariat is concerned, religion is not a private affair. Our Party is an association of class-conscious, advanced fighters for the emancipation of the working class. Such an association cannot and must not be indifferent to lack of class-consciousness, ignorance or obscurantism in the shape of religious beliefs. We demand complete disestablishment of the Church so as to be able to combat the religious fog with purely ideological and solely ideological weapons, by means of our press and by word of mouth. But we founded our association, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, precisely for such a struggle against every religious bamboozling of the workers. And to us the ideological struggle is not a private affair, but the affair of the whole Party, of the whole proletariat." Collected Works of Lenin Volume 10
So with this said, it seems that Lenin, in theory, wanted religion to be a private affair unless it was in regards to the party. It does seem to again be a more propaganda war. I would agree. Nonetheless, they were certainly atheist no doubt. The only possible link to mass murder would be his link with the French Revolution. But I think this reference is more to the use its written propaganda.
With that said though, both the French and Russia Revolution show the danger of militant state mandated atheism gone awry. The practical outworking of these Revolutions entailed seizure of church property, killing of religious leaders, and repression of religion that was not state sanctioned. (Along with all kinds of other people too including intellectuals) The same thing happened under Mao. (And continues in Tibet to this day in a more mild fashion) Anyone that reads Communist or Socialist writings that does not see the militant atheism as a core belief is blind. Does atheism kill? No! There are more moderate atheists in this country. Many have spoken against this stuff. Can militant atheism kill? Yes. Does it always have to? No.
The problem is that if atheism is a pre-requisite for party membership and the party takes over the state then atheism becomes the official position of the state. Tolerance is provided until the socialists take over. Then the state mandated belief or non-belief takes over. In these two cases atheism gone awry killed people. Some could even make and argument that militant atheism is a religion of its own. It was even called one during the French Revolution. This is not to say that all "militant atheists" sanction state murder. In fact, I think the majority throughout history probably opposed this. Certainly those in the US did.
My overall point is that militant atheism gone awry can do just as much damage as militant religion gone awry. This is why we have to make sure we stick to both parts of the Religion clause in the Constitution. No establishment and free exercise. I have no problem stating the Ed Brayton seems to be a champion of both. I just think he gets a bit biased at times and needs to step back from the ID issue some as not to appear more dogmatic than he is.
With that broad point made, I think more specifically here a consideration of what M Roberts stated needs to happen for some here. Words like socialism, liberal, and left are confusing as to what it means in historical context. We are talking here on Ed's blog a lot about 18th Century America as far as the Constitution and all. Many of the ideas of this time were borrowed from 18th Century Europe. They were Liberal ideas in the classic liberal sense. I think the frame of debate here is really about collectivism vs. individualism. The current structure of the American political system has collectivists and individualists on both sides fighting each other. Personally, I think both, taken to extremes, can be harmful. I am more of a pluralist. I recognize the value of both the individual and society as a whole.
Socialism is a collectivist philosophy. It has a secular version that was practiced in the Soviet Union. It was also practiced and is practiced here in the US and in my opinion is a no doubt more moderate as far as militancy. A religious version was practiced in 18th and 19th Century Britain and some could make an argument still is. It is also in the United States. I think most of socialism of today is a hybrid of both.
Some took Marx's theories and peacefully integrated them into society and others were violent about it. Both camps include atheists. The former camp has atheists, deists, and Christians as well.
I actually agree with the problem that Marx and Engel's diagnosed. I just think classic liberalism was a far better solution to the problem of how to deal with oppressive religion.(I think a lot of atheists agree with me) I would claim history bears this out. In 18th Century America this group included atheists, deists, Christians, Evangelical Christians, and many other types. WHY DOES THIS ALWAYS COME DOWN TO ATHEIST VS RIGHT WING CHRISTIAN?
I think the debate should be between economically socialist Libertarians and economically capitalist Libertarians.
I think one can see the problem of corporate greed and assign it to the ills of collectivism and not individualist ideas of rights to life, liberty, an property as contained in free market capitalism. We have anything but free markets now. I join with those on the left that call for fair trade. I just think it means something different. I hope both my broad argument and specific views are both well understood even if some disagree.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 28, 2008 2:40 PM
"There is no evidence that belief in a religion make a ruler more moral"
I never stated this or even implied it. You are linking what M roberts said with what I said. We agree on some points and I am sure disagree on others.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 28, 2008 2:49 PM
If you have any evidence that what Stalin and Mao did, they did because they "took evolution to asinine conclusions" then present it.
Stalin and Mao are more general cases. I think Hitler is a more direct case. I stated this on another post and someone a while back had a good comment on Hitler and Eugenics. He definetly was out to create a "new man" and pegged his ability to do so on evolution. But you are right that that evolution and atheism are not one and the same. I need to watch my wording.
But I do not think anyone questions that some wacked out thoeries of how to apply Darwin's theory exist. Look at the Matrix. These are more New Age thoughts usually than I think most on here would have. Evolution and Science can be used for good or bad just like anything else. To deny that to win a court case is ludicrious and dogmatic. Just as ludicrious and dogmatic as Evangelicals get. Pot calling the kettle black again.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 28, 2008 2:59 PM
While he was nominally an atheist, many elements of Mao's political beliefs derive pretty directly from traditional Taoist beliefs.
So, for example, the whole concept of "re-education through labor" was based on concepts of harmony between Yin and Yang recast as a body-mind duality where the mind is set right by rectifying the body.
The whole idea of the Chinese peasantry as the driver of the Chinese revolution derived from Taoist/Confucianist attitudes and was a major point of departure from the orthodox Marxist view that the urban proletariat was the revolutionary vanguard.
Mao was probably influenced as much by "The Art of War" and "All Men are Brothers" as he was by Marx and Engels.
Posted by: Ian Gould | March 28, 2008 3:18 PM
KoI
There is a critical component here that I think need to be made clear. Atheism in and of itself is not a theology a philosophy. At best it is a premise that some incorporated into their philosophy. The idea that belief in the supernatural is in some way inferior to or harmful is not part of atheism. Rather it is a conclusion that some people arrive at. In fact both theist and atheist can arrive at that conclusion.
What you call militant atheism, at least in the examples provided, could be considered a philosophy. But to answer your all caps question, I think the discussion gets sidetracked because people get their panties in a bunch when someone conflates philosophies that incorporate atheism with atheism itself.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 28, 2008 3:49 PM
" think the discussion gets sidetracked because people get their panties in a bunch when someone conflates philosophies that incorporate atheism with atheism itself."
I agree. How about when some conflate philosophies that conflate incorporate God with God Himself? I ask the question again: Could some be so zealous in the crusade against the establishment of religion that they are actually denying, or wanting to deny, others their right of free exercise there of. History is just a replete(hope I used that right) with examples of secularism gone mad as religion. Why do some argue against the latter and ignore the former.
I will look into Mao and other influences. Nothing is a pure ideology wise as it seems I agree in principle. But for those who said that Atheism has no bearing on oppressive regimes in Russia and China or little bearing. That is just not consistent with the facts of history and these men's own words.
Be careful many of you are about to kill your own cause by be labeled a religion in your own right. Michael Ruse has been saying this. I think Ed gets it. But do what you want.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 28, 2008 4:31 PM
KOI said:
Theists keep hurling this about as if it's an insult. But isn't religion a good thing in your eyes? I mean, you're religious, aren't you?
But this doesn't make any sense. The whole point of different religions is that they don't agree on who God Himself is. No such confluence exists between "atheism" or the absence of god-belief, and the bewildering array of philosophies that can emerge from that starting point.
It's as if I claimed that you are no different from Aztec sun-god cannibals because you are all theists. That's confusing theism (the presence of god-belief, which is a starting point) with a specific cr