Victims of Christianity?

The following claim about Christianity appeared in the comments section of an article about Oregon Senator Gordon Smith on oregonlive.com. The individual is responding to another poster regarding same-sex marriage:

'It's about fairness and equality, not religion (which also includes the right to not be reiigious). "God" has nothing to do with this. The history of Christianity is largely one of slaughter. I recommend you Google "victims of christianity" for enlightenment.'
Posted by Layne on 06/18/08 at 10:28AM

The poster went on to discuss the marriage issue which I may address at another time. My comments, however, will address his claim that "the history of Christianity is largely one of slaughter".

First, I would encourage everyone to engage Layne's Google challenge. Take the very first site that comes up titled "Victims of Religion" by Mark Smith. The first is the victims of the Jonestown massacre. An example of religion but hardly an example of Christianity.

The second example is of Rev. Kyle Lake who was electrocuted in a baptismal fount. Smith states that Rev. Lake is one of the people "who would have all been better off, if religion were not in the world." So a tragic accident becomes the fault of religion.

How many people died in car accidents today? I guess they "would have all been better off, if [cars] were not in the world." The Rev. Lake example is silliness. Tragedies happen. This example reveals more about the Smith's motivation - namely his hatred of God - than it does about religion.

The site does provide other examples where innocents were harmed or killed by those acting under religion including Christianity. Let me offer several thoughts.

First, was the perpetrators in each of the crimes acting consistently with the code that they claim they are following? The only time the code can be accused of being the source of barbarism is if, in fact, the code is the source of barbarism.

How does Christianity whose founder taught his followers to "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Love your enemies" teach barbarism? So, where Smith does offer examples of those following actual Christianity (rather than cults or other religions) it is actually examples of people acting inconsistently with the code they claim to follow.

We do not fault the Hippocratic Oath, which provides a rigid standard of conduct for doctors, because some doctors act inconsistent with it.

Second, the site holds up atheism as the answer to religion's barbarism. Time for the Facts! Take a look at The Guinness Book of World Records under Genocides and Massacres (1996 edition):

• The atheistic Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot massacred a third of Cambodia's 8 million people.
• The atheistic regime of Mao Tse Tung massacred 26.3 million Chinese between 1949 and 1965. The US Senate Judiciary Committee estimated that the number between 1949 to 1971 between 32.25 and 61.7 million.
• Hitler murdered 6 million Jews and countless thousands of others.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn estimated the loss of life under Lenin and Stalin at 66 million.

The crimes committed in the name of Christianity, while a blight, pale in comparison to the human carnage and destruction resulting from ideologies that had no room for God. And my examples are only from the last century.

Lastly, Layne and Smith claim that what religion has done is wrong and there are innocent victims to prove it. That is moral language. Religion ought not do those things. In fact, one ought not join a religion.

The claim is that religion has violated a transcendent standard of right and wrong.

Yet, if there is no God then there cannot be a transcendent standard of right and wrong (i.e. a moral standard that applies to everyone, at all times, in all places). Morality, then, becomes a personal preference of each human being.

If that is the case then Layne & Smith have a moral view and the religions he rails against also have a moral view. Who are they to tell religions that their actions are wrong. How do they claim these were innocent victims. Obviously, the perpetrators did not view those harmed as innocent victims nor thought their actions immoral.

In essence, Layne and Smith are saying everyone must adhere to their (i.e. Layne and Smith's) personal preferences of right and wrong. They have elevated their own view of morality to a transcendent standard.

Who are Layne or Smith to say that their personal moral preferences takes precedence over others? They have no grounds in which to condemn anyone.

All that is left are the irrational rantings of those who hold Christianity up to the very transcendent standard of right and wrong that they say doesn't exist.