Kingdom of Priests

Kingdom of Priests


Charles Manson, Evolutionist

posted by David Klinghoffer

Today and tomorrow mark the 40th anniversary of the murders that made Charles Manson an icon of evil. In Helter Skelter, prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi writes about his interviews with talent scout Gregg Jakobson, who spent many hours, over the course of a year and a half (1968-69), talking with Manson about his philosophy. Manson foresaw a race war pitting blacks against whites, and some have speculated that his motive in directing the murders was to hasten the inevitable conflict. Bugliosi asked:

What was Manson’s attitude toward blacks?

Gregg replied that Charlie “believed there were different levels when it came to race, and the white man occupied a higher level than the black.” This was why Charlie was so strongly opposed to black-white sex; “you would be interfering with the path of evolution, you would be mixing up nervous systems, less evolved with more evolved.”

Manson also claimed to find justification in the book of Revelation and the Beatles’ White Album, though any genuine link with those sources was purely a product of his twisted imagination. By contrast, in The Descent of Man and elsewhere, Charles Darwin wrote of degrees of racial superiority and of racial conflict and genocide as inevitable features of biological evolution. Manson departed from Darwinism in that he looked forward to the victory of the inferior race over the white “pigs.” The blacks would then turn over their power to the Manson Family.


Manson follower Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme added:

“I never heard Charlie utter the words ‘helter skelter,'” [but] she went on to say that “it is a matter of evolution and balance” and “the black people are coming to the top, as it should be.”

Admittedly the context of Fromme’s comment is a little ambiguous but it seems to back up Jakobson’s recollection.
No, obviously, as if it needs saying, I am not in any way blaming gentle Charles Darwin for murderous Charles Manson. But the present anniversary does remind us of another stitch, a bizarre one, in the fabric of Darwinism’s moral legacy.


Advertisement
Comments read comments(65)
post a comment
Your Name

posted August 9, 2009 at 8:04 pm


The funniest and most ridiculous headline I’ve ever seen on a blog, ever.



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted August 9, 2009 at 9:05 pm


David, why don’t you just cut to the chase and say, “SATAN, Evolutionist!” Then you won’t have to post any more threads like this.
No, obviously, as if it needs saying, I am not in any way blaming gentle Charles Darwin for murderous Charles Manson.
Of course you are, as much as you may deny. Otherwise, what’s the point of the post?
Manson also claimed to find justification in the book of Revelation and the Beatles’ White Album, though any genuine link with those sources was purely a product of his twisted imagination.
OK, so you point this out (which is true) and then expect us to take anything Manson said about evolution or anything else seriously? As the late comedian Sam Kinnison once said, Manson was insane, and if he’d been listening to a Monkees album he’d have credited it with his actions: “‘Hey hey, we’re the Monkees’, man! They’re talkin’ to ME man!”
Finally I would like to draw your attention to the questions and issues I raised on my post on the last thread (regarding the West articles you directed me to), and hey, just for old time’s sake:
David, in his post on Francis Collins: “On the other hand, that life has an evolutionary history including billions of years of change — that is unassailable as science and unobjectionable to me as a Jew.” Please explain to me how this is one whit different from theistic evolution. David, you said on that same post that you’d like to see someone debate Collins or ask him some pointed questions; yet you resolutely avoid all such questions and attempts at debate here. This one, which seems to me a statement of what almost anyone would refer to as theistic evolution, is especially egregious.
Finally, this does not count as a response to what we’ve been asking you about Maimonides (as I said above, a one-sentence quote from an author of a biography about him isn’t arguing his philosophical statements!). We’re still waiting. Also, I’m still waiting to hear you speak to the issues of randomness [I'll modify this since you suggested the West articles, but you haven't answered my critique of them yet] and alien intelligence vis-à-vis the “image of god”.
I know this is getting repetitive, but I think anyone reading this will agree that I’m not using nasty language and that I’m being perfectly polite. Don’t you think the civil thing is at least to acknowledge the questions, even if for some reason you don’t want to answer them? And if you don’t want to answer them, you might at least give us an idea why not.



report abuse
 

Kauko

posted August 9, 2009 at 10:31 pm


What I don’t understand about your blog is that it advertises itself as being about Judaism, when your near daily posts attempting to cast doubt on evolution stand in opposition to the fact that Judaism has historically been very open to evolution from the most liberal of rabbis to the most conservative. You have the right to your own opinion on the matter, no one will deny that, but I think that you are completely misleading people into thinking that this blog’s view represent some sort of consensus on how Jews react to evolution. The truth is that when it comes to this issue your view represents that of a minority opinion in Judaism.
Additionally, having followed posts on this blog, I don’t think that this blog deserves being characterized as being in any way Jewish or about ‘recovering the wisdom of the Hebrew Bible’. The content of this blog bears no resemblance to my experiences as a Jew. This blog could as easily be written by a conservative Christian with 99% of the same content and no one would notice a difference. For the sake of honesty with people who come accross this blog I think that it would be fair that either change the subtitle and supposed Jewish focus of this blog or actually begin making posts that have something to do with what the blog advertises itself as.



report abuse
 

Glennzaah

posted August 10, 2009 at 12:04 am


So I guess this one works too:
Charles Manson, American



report abuse
 

GalapagosPete

posted August 10, 2009 at 12:53 am


“But the present anniversary does remind us of another stitch, a bizarre one, in the fabric of Darwinism’s moral legacy.”
Darwin has no moral legacy, any more than does Newton or Galileo. Darwin merely described a fundamental scientific principle. Certain people, possibly including Charles Manson, may have used a distorted, totally non-scientific and completely irrational version of what they thought evolution was – prescriptive rather than descriptive – to justify committing heinous acts they would almost certainly have committed anyway.
Darwin was in many ways a typical Englishman, believing that European, particularly British – civilization was superior to any other, but it is unlikely, especially given his position on slavery, that he was nay more racist than any other Englishman of his day.
But even if Darwin had been a racist, it would have no bearing on whether evolutionary theory is true, and all the evidence that’s been accumulated since Darwin has supported it.



report abuse
 

John Pieret

posted August 10, 2009 at 7:24 am


So, let’s see … special pleading (that Manson mentioned evolution is significant but the fact that he mentioned the Bible isn’t) and Argument from Consequences (Manson mentioned evolution and Manson was bad, therefore evolution is false). The only question here is whether you are totally unfamiliar with the concept of logic or whether you are cynically insulting your target audience by assuming they are totally unfamiliar with the concept of logic. Care to tell us which?



report abuse
 

John Pieret

posted August 10, 2009 at 7:51 am


P.S. Of course, modern evolutionary theory holds that “race” is nothing more than minor variations in local populations of one human species … exactly the sort of evolution that the Discovery Institute keeps telling that ID accepts. So Manson was no more an “evolutionist” than he was an IDer.



report abuse
 

bryce

posted August 10, 2009 at 10:29 am


I don’t go for this kind of article, Mr. Klinghoffer. It encourages the kind of reaction where people create their own articles such as: “Baruch Goldstein, Orthodox Jew.”



report abuse
 

Glen Davidson

posted August 10, 2009 at 12:17 pm


Charles Manson, theist and Bible quoter.
He seems not to have been clear about almost anything, including religion, having dabbled in Scientology and a sort of offshoot of that cult, The Process. By the time of the murders he seems not to have been affiliated with any religious body.
Revelation was one of his favorite sources of quotes, and much of his talk was apocalyptic. But then David baselessly throws away any connection to the Bible and to the Beatles, solely because he isn’t prejudiced against those.
As far as any mention of evolution goes, it sounds closer to ID versions of evolution, with purpose and higher and lower levels. In fact, it’s probably closest to Scientology’s nonsense, but that would of course be closer to ID than to any actual science.
Manson also used the tactics of demonization and repetition that David uses, rather than evidence and reason.
A bastardization of Nietzsche (probably filtered through Hitler’s already distorted version) probably was one of the greater influences upon Manson–he at least claimed to have read Nietzsche (Bugliosi thought it unlikely, as Charlie could barely read), and I have no knowledge of any such claims about Darwin.
Not that I blame gentle David for all murders in the world, but we do well to remember this stitch in the moral legacy of dishonest religiosity.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
P.S. I am not aiming this at religion or the religious, which is why I write “dishonest religiosity.” The elevation of belief over honest and genuine ways of knowing distorts everything, including religion.



report abuse
 

Steven J.

posted August 10, 2009 at 1:18 pm


Never mind whether Charles Darwin was “gentle;” ask whether his evolutionary theory (or later modifications of it) could possibly support the ideas you imply that Manson derived from them.
Darwin insisted that variation exists in all populations; this was the stuff upon which natural selection operated. Such variation implied that differences within groups would overlap differences between them, and that there existed no trait, on which one could base a claim of racial superiority or inferiority, that was shared by all members of one race and no members of other races.
Darwin insisted on the biological unity of the human species (you can hardly avoid it, if you imply the biological unity of humans and other primates). In this respect, he differed from his contemporaries, many of whom held to separate creation for separate races and on divine curses on particular races and lineages condemning them to eternal servitude. The idea that there are proper destined social roles for different races is far more compatible with Genesis than with Darwin.
Darwin (and normally, wouldn’t you point this out so that you could complain about it?) implied that evolution is contingent, a tree, not a ladder; there is no unique, proper “path of evolution” from which a lineage might be wrongfully diverted. There is no global standard of “superiority;” there is only fitness for local and temporary environmental conditions, and what is fitter in one environment will be less fit in another. “More evolved” merely means “more changed from the last common ancestor,” not “better” or “closer to the top of the evolutionary ladder.”
Some side notes:
You ought not assume that “evolution” in Squeaky Frome’s comment about “evolution and balance” refers to biological rather than societal evolution, or that it is connected with Manson’s warped Lamarckian rather than Darwinian notion of “the path of evolution.”
Charles Darwin did not see racial conflict and genocide as inevitable features of evolution. He offered the tendency within one species (humans) for higher-technology cultures to wipe out lower-technology cultures and steal their land (something going on, in his day, in the Americas and Australia) as offering an explanation for why there were no longer ape-men to provide a living intermediate between humans and nonhuman apes. And despite the undercurrent of assuming Anglo-Saxon superiority (that he derived from his culture, not his theory, and which is really hard to reconcile with his theory), he really had little or nothing to say about “levels of racial superiority.”



report abuse
 

Guy Allen

posted August 10, 2009 at 3:24 pm


Doesn’t anyone realize that he is insane?



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 10, 2009 at 9:59 pm


Now we have the “Darwin = Charles Manson” smear.
David’s argument, such as it is, has been eviscerated already.
Let me add some sauce for the goose:
Torquemada, believer in intelligent design
Vlad the Impaler, believer in intelligent design
Gilles de Retz, believer in intelligent design…
Oh, are we sticking to cults? Do you really want to open a discussion on one murderous cult’s links to “Darwinism”, when the vast majority of them believe in “intelligent design”, according to the definition DI uses in the polls it commissions?
The line between good and evil runs through every human heart, David.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 10, 2009 at 10:20 pm


I am not in any way blaming the gentle Chazon Ish for murderous Yigal Amir. But the present anniversary does remind us of another stitch, a bizarre one, in the fabric of Haredi Judaism’s moral legacy.
A guy with degrees in literature cannot be ignorant that the second sentence contradicts the first. One can only conclude that he is deliberately being deceptive.



report abuse
 

GalapagosPete

posted August 11, 2009 at 1:29 am


“Guy Allen – Doesn’t anyone realize that he is insane?”
I certainly think it fair to say that he’s divorced from reality.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 11, 2009 at 1:50 am


Maybe David just needs some extra credit in Bill Dembski’s class:
http://www.designinference.com/teaching/teaching.htm
AP410 This is the undegrad course. You have three things to do: (1) take the final exam (worth 40% of your grade); (2) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 40% of your grade); (3) provide at least 10 posts defending ID that you’ve made on “hostile” websites, the posts totalling 2,000 words, along with the URLs (i.e., web links) to each post (worth 20% of your grade).
AP510 This is the masters course. You have four things to do: (1) take the final exam (worth 30% of your grade); (2) write a 1,500- to 2,000-word critical review of Francis Collins’s The Language of God — for instructions, see below (20% of your grade); (3) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 30% of your grade); (4) provide at least 10 posts defending ID that you’ve made on “hostile” websites, the posts totalling 3,000 words, along with the URLs (i.e., web links) to each post (worth 20% of your grade).
AP810 This is the D.Min. course. You have four things to do: (1) take the final exam (worth 30% of your grade); (2) write a 1,500- to 2,000-word critical review of Francis Collins’s The Language of God — for instructions, see below (20% of your grade); (3) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 30% of your grade); (4) develop a Sunday-school lesson plan based on the book Understanding Intelligent Design (worth 20% of your grade).



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 11, 2009 at 1:53 am


http://www.designinference.com/teaching/2008_fall_sci-faith_mdiv/final_exam_10dec08.pdf
Trace the connections between Darwinian evolution, eugenics, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. Why are materialists so ready to embrace these as a package deal? What view of humanity and reality is required to resist them?



report abuse
 

Ro

posted August 11, 2009 at 7:31 am


A smear indeed.
Why stop there? How about the ‘connections’ between Anaximander of Miletus, Aristotle, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and all the others involved in the history of evolutionary thought? Or have you a quote from Manson about natural selection in particular?



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted August 11, 2009 at 9:09 am


Good God, Gabriel, I thought you were being facetious until I went to the Dembski website. You just can’t parody this stuff.
Of course, when atheists make the same style of hostile attacks against theism as this, and cite the nastier side-effects of theism (Inquisitions, genocides, thought-control, etc.), ID types write essays about how there’s really no such thing as an atheist (I guess they all serve the Devil?), or how Darwin is to blame for it all. Can dish it out but not take it.
There’s a Yiddish expression a shanda fur die Goyim, literally “a scandal for the Gentiles”. It is used of a Jew who acts around Gentiles in a way that reflects badly on all Jews. Obviously, given the persecution of the Jews over the millennia, this was considered a very bad thing. Now theists (contrary to some of the more hysterical stuff you hear on the Right) are certainly not persecuted by secularists, atheists, agnostics, etc, and I don’t mean to imply any suffering on their part like that of the Jewish people. Still, as a theist (specifically, Catholic) myself, I can’t read stuff like this without really feeling it’s a shanda fur die secularists. As a theist, I sure don’t want myself represented this way. Oy!



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 11, 2009 at 9:26 am


Turmarion, I’ve taught classes. I never demanded that my students go post my opinions to other people’s websites.
But for 20-30% of the course grade?
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary charges $208 per credit hour. I feel sorry for the parents shelling out for that.
Dembksi is beyond parody, I’m afraid; did you check out the fart video he made of Judge Jones? You know, the judge he backed out of testifying before at the last minute, but kept the $20,000 expert witness fee he charged?
Seriously, these guys are getting to be self-satire. In my copious free time maybe I’ll write some code–perhaps an evolutionary algorithm–that can write David’s columns for him. It doesn’t seem that hard-find a evil person, find something they said or wrote that sounds like evolution if you don’t evolution is, claim that you aren’t blaming Darwin but that it’s part of Darwin’s moral legacy.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 11, 2009 at 9:47 am


There’s a Yiddish expression a shanda fur die Goyim, literally “a scandal for the Gentiles”. It is used of a Jew who acts around Gentiles in a way that reflects badly on all Jews.
There’s a harsher expression: chilul haShem. David’s coreligionists, to my knowledge, have not used it, but I am sure they are thinking it(they can speak for themselves)–an Orthodox Jew who works to spread Christianity. Maybe David thinks he doesn’t do that, but as Bill Dembski says, “Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory” and “The point to understand here is that Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always the completion.”



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 11, 2009 at 9:57 am


Turmarion:As a theist, I sure don’t want myself represented this way.
You’re not. People like P. Z. Myers and Richard Dawkins are extremists who will fault with you no matter what you believe, so long as you are religious.
As for me I’m with Solzhenitsyn-the line between good and evil runs through every human heart. It’s not ideology that causes evil; ideology merely rationalizes it for the evildoer. This is why Solzhenitsyn says Iago is not believable-he is evil for evil’s sake-but Iago has an ideology he’d be a lot like some people Solzhenitsyn had met.
I’m not religious, but I’d not try to turn you from Catholicism. I’d just ask you to keep in mind that religion taken too far in one direction is superstition, but taken too far in another is philosophy or mysticism. I think it is very easy to lose sight of God.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 11, 2009 at 10:49 am


Gabriel, that’s brilliant, and I couldn’t agree more that you could write an algorithm that would write David’s columns, to wit:
1. Find and evil person;
2. Search through the evil person’s writings or comments (or actions, even) that would indicate a belief in evolution;
3. Deny that you’re blaming Darwin or Darwinism for the evil actions of the evil person (but it’s “part of Darwin’s moral legacy”).
4. Lather, rinse, repeat tomorrow.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 11, 2009 at 11:02 am


But if people who believe in something or another are more likely to commit atrocites, and the difference is statistically significant, then that is a pretty good indicator that the ideology or belief system influences their behavior.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 11, 2009 at 11:11 am


But if people who believe in something or another are more likely to commit atrocites, and the difference is statistically significant, then that is a pretty good indicator that the ideology or belief system influences their behavior.
Well, looks you have a research project then. Go out and collect the statistics, and apply the regression analysis and report your findings.
Make sure you count the entire towns depopulated in Europe over religious wars and in witch-hunts. Don’t forget to control for lower populations.
I think you are going to find that people need little excuse to evil, and it doesn’t matter much exactly what that excuse is.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 11, 2009 at 11:21 am


The Thirty Years’ War, between Catholic and Protestant states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War
So great was the devastation brought about by the war that estimates put the reduction of population in the German states at about 15% to 30%. Some regions were affected much more than others. For example, the Württemberg lost three-quarters of its population during the war. In the territory of Brandenburg, the losses had amounted to half, while in some areas an estimated two-thirds of the population died. The male population of the German states was reduced by almost half. The population of the Czech lands declined by a third due to war, disease, famine and the expulsion of Protestant Czechs. Much of the destruction of civilian lives and property was caused by the cruelty and greed of mercenary soldiers, many of whom were rich commanders and poor soldiers. The Swedish armies alone may have destroyed up to 2,000 castles, 18,000 villages and 1,500 towns in Germany, one-third of all German towns.
The Inquisition witch investigation manual, Malleus Maleficarum, developed by Catholics, but the methods were heartily employed by Protestants:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_maleficarum
Institoris and Sprenger offer a step-by-step guide to the conduct of a witch trial, from the method of initiating the process and assembling accusations, to the interrogation (including torture) of witnesses, and the formal charging of the accused.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 11, 2009 at 11:28 am


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_of_witches
One of the most widely used forms of torture was using a red-hot pincher to sear the flesh and mutilate the accused. It was said that witches had a spot of insensitive skin on their body where the devil had touched them, known as “The Devil’s Mark”. In Britain and France there were even professional “Prickers” that specialized in finding the devil’s mark on the body of the accused. A famous witch pricker named Kincaid used to strip his victims, bind them hand and foot, and then thrust his pins into every part of their bodies until, exhausted and rendered speechless, they failed to scream, then he would proclaim that he had found the devil’s mark. Another example of mutilation through piercing was that of Anna Pappenheimer in Bavaria in 1600. As if the pain of the red-hot pincers was not horrible enough, the pincers seared off Anna’s breasts, and as the torture continued, her breasts were forced into her mouth and later the mouths of her two children. The breasts were often targeted because of their importance to the female gender and the large amounts of nerve endings lead to extreme amounts of pain.
People who think that war and murder and torture and genocide are things invented by atheists are people who don’t know any history.
Joshua chapter 8:
God said to Joshua, Stretch out the javelin that is in your hand toward Ai; for I will give it into your hand. Joshua stretched out the javelin that was in his hand toward the city. The ambush arose quickly out of their place, and they ran as soon as he had stretched out his hand, and entered into the city, and took it; and they hurried and set the city on fire. When the men of Ai looked behind them, they saw, and, behold, the smoke of the city ascended up to heaven, and they had no power to flee this way or that way: and the people who fled to the wilderness turned back on the pursuers.
When Joshua and all Israel saw that the ambush had taken the city, and that the smoke of the city ascended, then they turned again, and killed the men of Ai. The others came forth out of the city against them; so they were in the midst of Israel, some on this side, and some on that side: and they struck them, so that they let none of them remain or escape. The king of Ai they took alive, and brought him to Joshua. It happened, when Israel had made an end of killing all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, in the wilderness in which they pursued them, and they were all fallen by the edge of the sword, until they were consumed, that all Israel returned to Ai, and struck it with the edge of the sword. All that fell that day, both of men and women, were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai. For Joshua didn’t draw back his hand, with which he stretched out the javelin, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai. Only the cattle and the spoil of that city Israel took for prey to themselves, according to the word of Yahweh which he commanded Joshua.
So Joshua burnt Ai, and made it a heap forever, even a desolation, to this day. The king of Ai he hanged on a tree until the evening: and at the going down of the sun Joshua commanded, and they took his body down from the tree, and cast it at the entrance of the gate of the city, and raised thereon a great heap of stones, to this day. Then Joshua built an altar to Yahweh, the God of Israel, in Mount Ebal, as Moses the servant of Yahweh commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of uncut stones, on which no man had lifted up any iron: and they offered thereon burnt offerings to Yahweh, and sacrificed peace-offerings.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 11, 2009 at 11:35 am


Well, the biggest mass murderers, Stalin and Mao were atheists. And a disproportionate number of mass murderers were atheists, and every time atheists run a country, they resort to mass murder. There have been thousands of theistic rulers over the centuries and most of them never killed anybody.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 11, 2009 at 11:37 am


And I’m not sure it is fair to use the Bible if you don’t believe that the Bible is an actual record of history.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 11, 2009 at 11:50 am


Well, the biggest mass murderers, Stalin and Mao were atheists.
True, although Mao was raised a Buddhist and Stalin attended seminary…
There have been thousands of theistic rulers over the centuries and most of them never killed anybody.
Wow, you are REALLY ignorant. Who do you think was carrying out all the religious wars and persecutions that went on more or less continuously for about one thousand years in Europe and Asia?
You might have heard of English kings… religious persections went on under Edward I, Richard II, Henry IV, Henry VIII, Mary, Elizabeth I, James I, Charles I, Oliver Cromwell, Charles II, and James II.
And I’m not sure it is fair to use the Bible if you don’t believe that the Bible is an actual record of history.
The Bible may not accurately depict some historical events, but large parts of it are historical, and its picture of human nature is pretty accurate. Do you need more examples from the Bible? What about slavery? What about putting disobedient children to death?
For some reason, nothing bad that a religious person does religion bad, but anything bad that any atheist does makes atheism bad.
Why don’t you just accept that PEOPLE ARE BAD, more or less, and they don’t need excuses?
I would have been happy not to bring up religious wars and the bad parts of the Bible, but you wouldn’t leave well enough alone…



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 11, 2009 at 11:59 am


Exodus 21:20 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Yeah, blame atheism for THAT.
That is the Word of God right there, telling you that you may own another human being and beat him as long as he doesn’t die within a day or two, because he is your property.
You should really READ the Bible some time.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 11, 2009 at 12:09 pm


But Stalin and Mao commited their atrocities, they were atheists. They even killed clergy people to stamp out religion. And there is also Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, etc. I did not bring up atheist mass murderers. I only said that if there is a correlation between atrocities and belief systems then it is indicative. You brought uop atrocities. And its true that religious persecutions took place under theistic kings, but they never killed as many people as the atheists. Not even close. And again, there were thousands of theistic kings. Most of them never killed anybody. But every time atheists run a country, they wind up commiting mass murder. It looks like the numbers are against the atheists



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 11, 2009 at 12:22 pm


And its true that religious persecutions took place under theistic kings, but they never killed as many people as the atheists. Not even close.
They didn’t have modern weapons, or modern populations in the billions. Do you know who Oliver Cromwell was and what he did to Catholics? What do you think he’d have done with tanks and bombs and machine guns?
But every time atheists run a country, they wind up committing mass murder.
You mean, every time COMMUNISTS run a country.
It looks like the numbers are against the atheists.
Your list of atheist dictators, at most, runs to two dozen, over a period of one hundred years. Do you have any idea how many kings and nations were involved in witch hunts, Crusades, jihads, and religious persecutions, over a thousand years? We’ve established that you’ve read no history and don’t read the Bible, so the answer is clearly no. You have no idea what the numbers are. You don’t even know who Franco was, probably; or how many people he and his thugs murdered.
You are making things up, because you already decided. You’ve done no0 survey and collected no statistics. Stalin didn’t kill 30% of his country. Neither did Mao.
I grew up in a largely Spanish-speaking town. The gangbangers didn’t have tattoos of Charles Darwin. I would ask them sometimes, do you believe in God and the Holy Virgin? Why do you bad things?
Well, they believed in God and the Holy Virgin, and they KNEW they were going to hell, but they did what they thought they needed to do.
People can ALWAYS find an excuse.
You going to blame Darwin for Osama bin Laden and 9/11? Doesn’t it bother you that terrorists like him say the same things about atheism and science that you say? You like being on their side?
You think you’d like living in a God-fearing country like Iran, where they take stuff like what’s in the Bible seriously and apply it today? Where they cut hands off and let men marry nine year old girls? You find that sort of thing in the Bible too, you know.
Evil is everywhere. Even in people who claim to be believers.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 11, 2009 at 12:33 pm


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Ireland
The Cromwellian conquest of Ireland (1649-53) refers to the re-conquest of Ireland by the forces of the English Parliament, led by Oliver Cromwell during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. Cromwell landed in Ireland with his New Model Army on behalf of the English Parliament in 1649….He passed a series of Penal laws against Roman Catholics (the vast majority of the population) and confiscated large amounts of their land. The Parliamentarian reconquest of Ireland was brutal, and Cromwell is still a hated figure in Ireland….he Parliamentarian campaign is generally estimated to have resulted in the death or exile of about 15-25% of the Irish population, though a few historians have suggested that the population dropped by as much as 50%.
Mao killed a lot of people. He didn’t kill 1 out of every 4.
I don’t want to sound like Mao wasn’t so bad. He was possibly the worst human being that ever lived. My Chinese relatives suffered terribly in the Cultural Revolution.
But my Dutch relatives suffered terribly at the hands of their fellow Christians over several hundred years. And Jews were killed by Christians for the better part of two thousand.
But it’s a double standard you have. All the Communist crimes are really atheist crimes, you say. But the witch-hunt and pogrom and Jihad and Crusade crimes are not religious crimes.
One rule for you and the opposite rule for me is dishonest.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 11, 2009 at 12:47 pm


Here’s a list:
Afghanistan Nur Muhammad Taraki, Babrak Kamal
Albania Enver Hoxha
Angola Agostinho Neto, Jose Eduardo dos Santos
Bulgaria Vulko Chervenkov, Todor Zhivkov
Cambodia Pol Pot, Heng Samrin
China Mao Tse-Tung, Hua Guofeng, Deng Xiaoping,
Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintau
Cuba Fidel Castro
Czechoslovakia Klement Gottwald, Antonin Zapotocky,
Antonin Novotny, Gustav Husak
East Germany Walter Ulbricht, Erich Honecker
Ethiopia Tafari Benti, Mengistu Haile Mariam
French Republic Jean-Marie Collot d’Herbois, Jacques Nicolas
Billaud-Varenne
Greece Nikolaos Zachariadis
Hungary Matyas Rakosi
Laos Kaysone Phomvihane, Khamtai Siphandone
Mongolia Khorloogiin Choibalsan, Yumjaagiin
Tsedenbal
Mozambique Samora Machel
North Korea Kim il-Sung, Kim Jong-il
Poland W?adys?aw Gomu?ka, Boleslaw Bierut
Romania Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, Nicolae Ceausescu
Soviet Union Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Nikita
Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev
Spain Manuel Azana, Francisco Largo Caballero
Vietnam Ho Chi Minh, Le Duan, Truong Chinh,
Nguyen Van Linh, Do Muoi, Le Kha Phieu,
Nong Duc Manh
Yugoslavia Josip tito



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 11, 2009 at 12:50 pm


When did I ever excuse crimes commited by religious people, or crimes commited in the name of religion? All I’m saying is that the numbers are against the atheists.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 11, 2009 at 12:54 pm


And saying they are all communists just means that atheists have a tendancy to become communistic mass murderers. After all, all communistic amss murderers are atheists. And blaming it on moern technology isn’t a complete answer because the favorite method of Stalin and Mao was starvation.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 11, 2009 at 1:18 pm


All I’m saying is that the numbers are against the atheists.
Where’s your list of religious mass murderers then, to compare with? Oh, that’s right, YOU DON’T KNOW ANY HISTORY.
I mean, it’s really awesome that you can cut-and-paste from some list from Answers in Genesis or wherever, but you only have one side of the equation here. You have never even attempted to look at the other side. You never even HEARD of these people until I brought them up.
You have no idea if “atheists”-you actually mean Communists-are any worse. You have never even tried to do any research o this.
all communistic amss murderers are atheists
Your grasp of logic is every bit as good as your grasp of history, I see. Here is your statement with “dogs” for Communists and “pets” for atheists.
All dogs are pets. That just means that pets have a tendency to be dogs.
Do you LISTEN to yourself?
And blaming it on moern technology isn’t a complete answer because the favorite method of Stalin and Mao was starvation.
AND modern populations. There were not 50 million people in Ireland in the 1600s, now were there?
1 out of 4 Irishmen were killed or exiled by Cromwell. Not Hitler, not Stalin, not Mao, ever achieved that percentage.
What people reading your posts, and reading mine, will learn is this:
That you a) do not know any history, b) do not know your Bible, c) can cut-and-paste lists spoonfed to you by religious sites, d) do not grasp elementary logic, e) cannot figure out how to put your own name on top of your posts, but f) feel entitled to tell other people that they are wrong despite not knowing anything.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 11, 2009 at 1:28 pm


Here’s one you never heard of:
The Seven ‘Kill’ Stele was erected by Zhang Xianzhong, one of the worst mass murderers in Chinese history, which is saying a very great deal…His intention seems to have been to exterminate the entire population of Sichuan, at that time probably around twenty million. He very nearly succeeded, if the oral tradition can be believed. Hu-Guang tian Sichuan, say local people with a shudder and a shake of the head: that is, there were so few people left alive in Sichuan after Zhang was through, the province had to be re-populated from the “Hu” and “Guang” provinces….At some point in his career of homicide, Zhang felt it necessary to explain himself to the world. He therefore caused a stele to be erected, inscribed with the following three lines of seven Chinese characters each:
Heaven has brought fourth numberless things for the nourishment of Man.
Man does not do one good deed in recompense to Heaven.
Kill kill kill kill kill kill kill
This religious believer killed something like 15 million people. Already, just this ONE GUY, that is 15% of Communism’s total.
YOU NEVER HEARD OF HIM.
So how can you make quantitative comparisons?



report abuse
 

Thomas Beck

posted August 11, 2009 at 2:20 pm


If you can call Manson an evolutionist, can I call Baruch Goldstein a typical Orthodox Jew?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 11, 2009 at 2:40 pm


I heard of Zhang. I keep on saying that theist have commited atrocities. But the numbers seem to go against the atheists. There were aproximately 80 atheist heads of state, and 52 mass murderers. Over 50. And according to some estimates, Pol Pot killed 1/3 of the population of Cambodia. That beats Cromsell’s 25%



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 11, 2009 at 2:51 pm


Sorry typo – should be “more than 50%”.



report abuse
 

Bill

posted August 11, 2009 at 5:48 pm


Why do some atheists refuse to acknowledge that some of the world’s worst atrocities have been committed by atheists? In a single century atheist regimes have killed almost 300 million. That’s a pretty big gorilla to try and ignore. Even worse is when some atheists attempt to somehow place the blame for atheist atrocities on religion.



report abuse
 

Dennis

posted August 11, 2009 at 7:58 pm


History is repleat with the records of murder by both atheists and theists. A crime by either is still evil. What we need to understand is why anyone would willfully harm another. How do you have to raise a child to produce such a profound lack of empathy and compassion? How do you train a person not to feel the pain they cause their victims? Absolute power does corrupt. Religion does not answer these vital questions



report abuse
 

Travis Cottreau

posted August 12, 2009 at 1:02 am


Darwin’s views on race pretty much followed the moral zeitgeist of the time. I don’t even consider him a racist, although he would be by today’s standards. I will probably be considered morally reprehensible in 100 years for swatting flies or for the sneakers I’m wearing – that’s just the way it works, and you can’t take a person out of their society and judge them by a different time’s standards.
Hitler, Mao, Stalin on the other hand, stood out from their time’s standards as being particularly bad – similarly, Gandhi was particularly good for his time.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 12, 2009 at 1:14 am


I heard of Zhang. I keep on saying that theist have commited atrocities. But the numbers seem to go against the atheists. There were aproximately 80 atheist heads of state, and 52 mass murderers. Over 50. And according to some estimates, Pol Pot killed 1/3 of the population of Cambodia. That beats Cromsell’s 25%
You can’t compare something to nothing. When are you going to calculate the mass murders committed by religious believers?
Bill:Why do some atheists refuse to acknowledge that some of the world’s worst atrocities have been committed by atheists?
Another guy with an A in Logic 101! Atheists DON’T refuse to acknowledge Mao and Stalin’s atrocities. But they weren’t committed by just ANY atheists, but COMMUNIST atheists. All dogs are pets, but not all pets are dogs, and cats don’t become dogs just because they are pets.
Almost all Nazis were Christians, even if some of them weren’t mainstream Christians. Do you want Christians to be tarred with the Nazi brush? I don’t.
In a single century atheist regimes have killed almost 300 million.
Who’s an atheist? Hitler wasn’t. Stalin was. The Rwandans weren’t. Serbs are Catholic. You can’t just make numbers up, compare them to nothing, and declare atheism to be evil.
Once again, the double standard. When religious people do evil, religion is not implicated, but when atheists do evil-and not even all atheists, but Communists-somehow atheism itself is to blame.
If religion is true, you don’t need to lie for it.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 12, 2009 at 2:17 am


Let’s try this ONE MORE TIME. It seems religious believers are a bit SLOW.
ATHEISTS are not the same as COMMUNISTS.
Almost all Communists are atheists. Very few atheists are Communists.
All these “atheist” dictators you are talking about are COMMUNISTS. EVERYBODY KNOWS that COMMUNISTS KILL LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE. No one has said otherwise.
Are you all too stupid to read? Do you not have dictionaries? Do you not speak the English?
Oh, I see, logic is the problem? Do you all feed your cats dog food because cats are pets and dogs are pets?



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 12, 2009 at 2:25 am


Atheism: n. Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness.
Communism: n. A theory that advocates the abolition of private ownership, all property being vested in the community, and the organization of labour for the common benefit of all members; a system of social organization in which this theory is put into practice.
A political doctrine or movement based on revolutionary Marxism, seeking the overthrow of capitalism through a proletarian revolution, the social ownership of the means of production, and the creation of a classless society.
A system of government in which all economic and social activity is controlled by the state acting through the medium of a single authoritarian political party, with the purported aim of realizing the doctrines of revolutionary Marxism.
Learn to read, geniuses.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 12, 2009 at 3:42 am


Communism is primarily an economic theory; consequently there are Christians Communists. Are they mainstream Christians? Not most of them. But you don’t have to be an atheist to believe the state should run the economy and repress people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism
It’s like you guys think that atheists and Communists and “Darwinists” are all the same thing. But there is no “atheism”, as a social group, any more than there is “religionism”.
Atheists are the proverbial herd of cats. There are a few “evangelical” types like Richard Dawkins, a few “cultist” types like Ayn Rand, but the vast majority of atheists don’t really care what other people think about God, and don’t think much about God themselves.
I myself have never voted for anyone other than Republicans. That is because I believe in limited government, economic freedom, and a strong foreign policy, which Republicans used to believe in. But Democrats are invariably worse on these issues, in my opinion, no matter how bad Republicans seem to get.
I don’t think that Catholicism makes you a child molester because so many priests turned out to be. I don’t think that being a Southern Baptist makes you a racist, even though the Southern Baptist congregation was explicitly founded on the compatibility of Christianity and slavery ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist ).
When religious people do bad things, I don’t blame the religion, I blame the person.
Kindly extend to me the same courtesy, since none of you can support your nonsensical allegations with anything resembling LOGIC.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 12, 2009 at 9:10 am


Mussolini was an atheist and a pretty bad person, but he was not a communist. And again, if every communistic mass murderer is an atheist, there is a strong correlaton between being a communist mass murderer and a atheist.
According to Dr. Rummel there have been ~750 incidents of mass murder in all of recorded history. There have been ~1750 Christian kings alone. So if we attribute every single case of mass murder to a Chritian king, then the percentage is still less than that of Atheistic/Communistic murderers.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 12, 2009 at 9:11 am


Adn the differnet brands of communinsm practised by the different regimes were so different that I’m not sure you cna call them a common factor.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 12, 2009 at 10:36 am


Your name:there is a strong correlaton between being a communist mass murderer and a atheist.
We’ll try this a THIRD time, Boy Genius. Here is your logic: There is a strong correlation between being a dog and being a pet; so being a cat is indicative of being a dog.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_undistributed_middle
PLEASE CLICK THAT LINK. Your massive syllogistic FAIL is painful for the educated to read.
You are doing more to hurt the cause of religion every time you open your mouth than Richard Dawkins could ever DREAM of doing.
If you didn’t exist, he would have to invent you.
Adn the differnet brands of communinsm practised by the different regimes were so different that I’m not sure you cna call them a common factor.
Ummm… they all call themselves by the same name, all believe in the same crackpot economic theories, have the same rhetoric, the same red flags and gold stars, all claim to derive their theorires from Marx…
And you STILL haven’t figured out how to put a name on the top of a post!
I’ll give you credit for one thing: Mussolini was indeed an atheist who was not a Communist.
Dr. Rummel there have been ~750 incidents of mass murder in all of recorded history. There have been ~1750 Christian kings alone
Who the hell is “Dr Rummel” and what makes him an authority? How did he make this calculation? Where is this published?
Even if this is true, what are you trying to calculate? The ratio of atheist murderers to total atheists, or the number of people they killed, or what? Are you going to try to come up with some formula to calculate the relative evil of atheists vs religious people?
Doesn’t this exercise strike you as stupid? If religious people turn out worse in your computation–assuming you bothered to honestly count instead of just making stuff up–are you going to abandon your God? Of course not.
All you are doing is trying to convince people that atheism is bad and religion is good. All you are SUCCEEDING in doing is demonstrating ignorance of history, logic, and the meanings of common English words.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 12, 2009 at 10:51 am


Your name:According to Dr. Rummel there have been ~750 incidents of mass murder in all of recorded history.
Guess what else he says:
http://hawaii.edu/powerkills/FREEMAN.INTERVIEW.HTM
Before the twentieth century, I estimate that governments were responsible for at least 89 million deaths and possibly as many as 260 million. My best guess is around 133 million.
All that goes in the religious total, since they didn’t have atheist dictators in those days. Add to it the Nazi 20 million, since the vast majority of them were Christians, add to it the millions killed in India and Pakistan by Hindus and Muslims. Don’t forget Christians killing Muslims in the former Yugoslavia, or Christians killing each other in Northern Ireland and Rwanda.
Against that, the 100 million killed by Communists doesn’t seem so out of place.
It almost seems as though, I don’t know, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE ALL THE TIME WITH LITTLE EXCUSE.
That’s the problem, Boy Genius, when you introduce a source into an argument and don’t read it.



report abuse
 

Donald Wolberg

posted August 13, 2009 at 12:12 am


Mr. Klinghoffer seems to have a very odd view of Mr. Darwin and his writings the hostoric context of Victorian England. One must assume that he is either unfamiliar in any real sense with the one or the both, and unfotunately I must conclude that the latter is the case. Mr. Klinghoffer has substituted emotionalism with rationality and lost the lattter at the expense of the former. I would suggest he take a deep breath and look at other world views. Mr. Darwin was a very gentle and kind soul who spoke out on many issues of the day, and was remarkably progressive for an upper middle class Englishman with a fame that he did not ask for and with which he was never comfortable. His genius was as substantive as that of Einstein and he had much the same sense of humanity about him as that great man. It is a shame that Mr. Klinghoffer feels a need to cast Mr. Darwin in such a way. One wonders if Einstein’s conception of the universe and time also frightens Mr. Klinghoffer or makes him feel insecure.



report abuse
 

Sam

posted August 13, 2009 at 3:49 pm


The Manson murder story is quite bizarre. We reported on it 40 years ago and have updated and re-released our book for the 40th anniversary: Five To Die: The Book That Helped Convict Manson. You can check out http://www.mansonbook.com too and the blog.



report abuse
 

Mike McCants

posted August 15, 2009 at 10:49 pm


“But the present anniversary does remind us of another stitch, a bizarre one, in the fabric of Darwinism’s moral legacy.”
No, it just reminds us what an idiot you are.



report abuse
 

Not your name but mine

posted August 17, 2009 at 6:04 am


To the person above trying to cast the atrocities of Mao and Stalin as some sort of defense against mass murders committed by religious people I ask: “Were those atrocities committed in the name of Atheism or were they to consolidate power?”
If you look honestly you will see the folly of your argument.



report abuse
 

alex

posted August 17, 2009 at 4:14 pm


I believe it was a combination, but I’m not willing to put percentages on it.



report abuse
 

Bill

posted August 18, 2009 at 4:15 pm


Were those atrocities committed in the name of Atheism or were they to consolidate power?
It all balances out. Nothing good has ever been done “in the name of atheism” either.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 18, 2009 at 6:51 pm


It all balances out. Nothing good has ever been done “in the name of atheism” either.
I’d be satisfied with the moral neutrality of atheism. Great good and great evil have come out of religion, and I suppose it is morally neutral as well.
The line between good and evil runs through every human heart.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 21, 2009 at 4:09 am


Gabriel, I love it when atheists like you try to define good and evil, given the fact that good and evil don’t even apply to monkeys and apes, yet humans are MERELY more advanced monkeys and apes.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 21, 2009 at 7:53 am


Not Your Name but Mine:
I never said I was defending atrocities commited by religious people. I was merely talking about statistics.



report abuse
 

David Johnston

posted December 27, 2009 at 1:07 pm


Given that the idea that Africans were intellectual inferiors did not originate with Darwin, and in fact predated his theories, and that there is no indication that Manson read any Darwin, any connection between Darwin and Manson’s fantasies seems specious at best. He at least seems to have read Revelation.



report abuse
 

Pingback: Colorado Shooter James Holmes & Darwin | The Sensuous Curmudgeon

Pingback: Hey, Klinghoffer: This Is Your Moment! | The Sensuous Curmudgeon

Pingback: Darwin, Evolution, & the Boston Bombing | The Sensuous Curmudgeon

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Kingdom of Priests. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Kabballah Counseling Happy Reading!

posted 11:24:22am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Animal Wisdom: The Voice of the Serpent
Our family watched Jaws together the other evening -- which, in case you're wondering, I regard as responsible parenting since our kids are basically too young to be genuinely scared by the film. The whole rest of the next day, two-year-old Saul was chattering about the "shark teeth." "Shark teeth g

posted 3:56:33pm Mar. 16, 2010 | read full post »

Reading Wesley Smith: Why the Darwin Debate Matters
If the intelligent-design side in the evolution debate doesn't receive the support you might expect from people who should be allies, that may be because they haven't grasped why the whole thing matters so urgently. I got an email recently from a journalist whom I'd queried on the subject. "All told

posted 5:07:12pm Mar. 15, 2010 | read full post »

The Mission of the Jews
Don't miss my essay over at First Things on the mission of the Jews to the world. This, I think, the key idea that the Jewish community needs to absorb at this very unusual cultural moment, for the time is so, so right. Non-Jews are waiting for us to fulfill the roll God gave us in the Torah. Please

posted 6:14:16pm Mar. 05, 2010 | read full post »

Darwin at the Mountains of Madness: Evolution & the Occult
Of all the regrettable cultural forces that Darwinism helped unleash, perhaps the most surprising and seemingly unlikely is its role in sparking the creation of modern occultism. Charles Darwin himself could not have been less interested in the topic. But no attempt to assess the scope of his legacy

posted 2:04:11pm Mar. 04, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.