Christian Cliches

Yes, you can get this on a shirt.

Well, THAT was ... typical.

A writing group that I hang out with posted an article by an atheist, and ... I guess it could have been worse.

The article talks about dismissing Islamic terrorism by talking about "Christian  violence."  Of course, it brings up the crusades. And the myth of atheists who are perfectly harmless.

It ALSO points out that Christian "violence" in the past hundred years is virtually non-existent.  He even notes that the abortionists killed since Roe vs Wade is in the single digits -- like I did.

Half-right is better than nothing.

Sigh.  Some of these are so old I want to bash my brains out.

If we're talking about "violent" examples, then the examples of militant / violent behavior are:

• Islam: ISIS / jihad.
• Atheism: The Soviets.
• Christianity: The Crusades.

... the Crusades? Hmm.  Funny, weren't there witch trials? Wasn't there the evil Inquisition?

Problem: if witch trials were started under a religious mandate, the authority was from a secular, government, figure, not religious (like a church). It's no coincidence that the big witch scares only happened in areas where religion was considered subordinate to the state. Oh, you didn't know that? Funny thing.

Then there are the big bad Crusades.  Oooooo.... Yes, it was religious... And a little practical.  Very little. Remember, the nobles of Europe bankrupted themselves in an effort to retake the Holy Lands, so it wasn't about profit.  The mandate was to clear out the Holy Lands. Period. Sacking Constantinople, et al, were the people who slipped the leash. 

Also, those who sacked Constantinople were excommunicated from the Church.  Didn't know that, either, didja?

Don't worry, I didn't even know that last part until now either.



In the First Crusade, the Crusaders were horrified to find that the Muslims didn't keep to their word, didn't show mercy to prisoners, and didn't consider any action against non-Muslims to be immoral. If all things are equal, if the Crusaders were just out for blood, why did they find this so surprising? That, right there, is a telling example of the difference.

Why not the Inquisition? First, there were two.  Most people think of the Spanish Inquisition, not the version in Rome, which only ever comes up in the mind of an idiot if talking about Galileo.

As with the the Spanish Inquisition, if it was just so EEVVVIIILLL, why did people deliberately commit religious crimes to get their case transferred to that bastion of cruelty?  Yeah. Funny that. The Inquisition jails were so much better, people faced with accusations of secular crimes would utter blasphemous and heretical statements in the secular court, so that they would then be transferred to the ecclesiastical edition.

In the secular court, for example, you were guilty until proven innocent, and you could be accused annonymously. Yes, with the Inquisition -- even the Spanish edition, which was directly controlled by the King of Spain rather than reporting to the Pope -- the Church, you see, created "innocent until proven guilty" and "the right to face your accuser."

The Spanish Inquisition even asked the accused for a list of their enemies in order to strike the witness list of enemies.  Yup, the Spanish Inquisition took the radical step of taking the accuser's gain into account. The Inquisitiors took a very dim view at false statements. In fact, those who made false statements could be found by the court as themselves committing a crime. 

Welcome to "contempt of court."

Even the "torture" of the Inquisition .... really, people?  The guidelines for the Inquisition using pain to extract information were simple: inflict NO DAMAGE that couldn't be recovered from in two or three days.  When you consider the documentaries recently on how "the rack" works, that means they didn't even turn the wheel a full revolution, they clicked it a few times, total. It would still suck, but they'd walk away, and not have their joints explode.

But, still, they basically have the same guidelines as Guantanamo Bay, and there, terrorists were tossed into a darkened box with a caterpillar (and told it was a scorpion), bounced off of specifically designed walls that would cause no harm, but sound loud, and two or three people were waterboarded. This was the Inquisition. Really scary, huh?

See Howard Kamen on the subject, really.

Oh, yes, the Inquisition lasted for 300 years, and may have killed 4,000 people. Why may have?  Because they counted people burned in effigy as executed.  Yup. Welcome to the Catholic church.  At worst, it killed 14 people a year on average.  The low number, 2,000, means only 7 people a year. That's less than the average spy count during the Cold War.  

And remember, the Inquisition was after the reconquista, the Spanish just drove off the Islamic Moors, and having Muslims in town seemed like A Bad Idea.  The "purge" was like America looking at Russian immigrants during the Cold War -- common sense. Jews were seen as middlemen for the Moors, and if you look at the history of the Inquisition as written by Netanyahu (Bibi's father, I think), it basically boiled down to "How we fooled the Inqusition."

Christianity does not, and has never, advocated violence. I do, but I'm possibly insane, a sociopath, or with anger management issues, depending on who you talk to.  Then again, I have papers to prove I'm sane. Muahahahaahah.

Violence has been tolerated as a defensive measure, and only in the interests of justice. Remember, the Crusades, were a defensive measure, a response not to Islam conquering the Holy Lands but rather to preventing pilgrimage in said lands. Three hundred years is quite a long time between an invasion and a counterattack, if that's all there was to it.

SPOILERS

There was at least one Pope in the 20th century who was involved in not one but two conspiracies to kill a world leader.  He knew about the attempts beforehand, and could be accused of conspiracy before the fact. But Pope Pius XII didn't have any direct contact with the assassins who went after Hitler, so I don't think that should count.

When I ran this past the Facebook group -- from whom I cribbed much of this post -- Novel Ninja Matthew Bowman had this to say. 

I'd still argue that assassination can be a defensive measure when it prevents unnecessary collateral damage. Killing Hitler would have served the interests of justice far more so than what actually happened.

It's the Principle of Double Effect, usually mistranslated as "choosing the lesser of two evils." Instead, you choose the greater of two GOODS. The lesser evil is not always the one that brings about the greater good. (This is a concept that non-fluffy parents know well. A little discipline is better than none at all.)

Atheist wars against religion have claimed far more lives than those wars "of" religion.  Look it up.  Vox Day, The Irrational Atheist, broke it down by wars. Richard Dawkins is just a schmuck.  And atheists still have terrorists, just ask the Oslo Bomber.  Communism alone butchered 100,000,000 people. Yes, you read that right, one hundred million people.

END SPOILERS

Islam, on the other hand, calls for violent action. Muhammad gave very specific orders on how his followers were to treat infidels, and those followers have been pretty good at obeying. Sell the females and boys into slavery. All men are to be killed. How do you determine who's a man? Drop his pants and see if he's got hair. (And if he's circumcised, kill him anyway.)

Evil Christian historical violence is a terrible, terrible cliche`, and I want people to read a book or something. Because I am sick and tired of this bullcrap.

Also, if you read the article that started this all (wwwwwaaaaayyyy back up top), you'll note he cites Bill Maher, but even Maher seems to have walked back his stance on Christians lately, because, "Oh, look, ISIS." Just ... I'm so tired of all this.

Yes, I know the blog was late this week, but I did four blog posts last week, and I was sick as a dog, and I'm not 100% recovered. So, back off.