Here’s a happy thought for you to consider:
“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction.”
I’ll leave the source a mystery.
jerry
PS-I hope this isn’t a repeat. If it was, I’m sorry. My wife just read it to me a little bit ago and it sounded like a great quote for this series.
46 Comments(+Add)
And most insidious of all is when evil appears to be completely good. I would suggest one remarkable example would be someone who helps sick Hindus in their death sufferings but refuses to speak to them of the Redeemer as a matter of policy.
Profoundly evil while appearing to be profoundly good.
There are a lot of quaint little statements and quotes like this one. And there is some truth in it I suppose, but the facts don’t really bear this out.
It is indisputable that the 20th century was the bloodiest century on record since the dawn of man – in fact, responsible for more murders that ALL the other centuries of history added together.
Who were the greatest offenders? All were atheists (Stalin, Mao, Pot, Hitler, etc).
The problem with the quote above is the word ‘religion’. Religion is man-made and often serves as a vehicle to motivate people towards a particular end – but it is not Christ, and it is not God.
Look at the conflict in Ireland. Protestants versus Catholics. Really? It was just a political war going on, with a veneer of religion overlaid on top.
People use religion to justify a lot of things (slavery, murder, genocide, etc), but these are decisions made by man and then given legitimacy by distorting the word of God.
Hitler wasn’t an atheist.
But, yes, it is possible for atheists to operate out of an almost religious conviction.
The Inquisition? The Crusades? Constantine? Joan of Ark?
There are plenty of examples.
Yes Rick, and I alluded to this.
But the problem is when we equate religion with God. Religion is man-made, and therefore can be manipulated to whatever cause we like.
Many, many people (especially those who are not saved) confuse the two completely.
Phil, you seem to be correct regarding Hitler. But he was a Catholic, and for the majority of Catholics, faith is less than skin deep.
But, again. Look at the quote.
It is not accurate. Men commit evil for religious reasons, but they also do so for completely secular reasons – as gleefully as ever.
I would argue that atheism gives evil the upperhand, though the RCC is a tough one to compete against in this regard.
Hmmm…I know many who would argue that it was religion with a huge influence politically that caused the issues. Not a veneer of religion.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that there haven’t been atrocities committed by atheists. I do think, though, that the atrocities committed by people in the name of religion tend to be a bit more insidious. The promise of future reward, whether it be absolution of sin, 72 virgins, or whatever can be quite a compelling force.
I find it even in play somewhat today in the US, in the way we talk about soldiers who die in battle. Certainly, there is something honorable about giving your life up for others, but the other side of that coin is that we implicitly make it honorable to kill other for the sake of the country.
Well, I don’t think that fact mattered too much to the Anabaptists who were forced to undergo a “third baptism” with approval of the Reformers.
Northern Ireland was a war that pit the Irsih against the English and it was ultimately about the vestiges of English oppression and imperialism which took Irish land.
The religion divide was incidental.
Phil, I am not disagreeing that religion can indeed be insidious in this respect as it claims to represent the highest power being in favor of the ‘just cause’.
What I am saying is that it is inaccurate as you could easily point to more murders committed by (and because of) atheism.
Religion is more often a tool of Satan, as it does give a sense of ‘justification’ to ones actions (ie: the Crusades and the utter atrocities that occurred along the way and in the Holy Land itself).
The people were kept in ignorance of God intentionally, so that they could be manipulated by the ‘Princes of the Church’ who offered indulgences, manufactured Purgatory and the like.
The RCC is perhaps the greatest example of the quote, but in my view, it is a little out of date, though I’m sure will be making a comeback as we spiral towards the end of this age.
Rick originally that was the case but in the twentieth century the religious movements in the country began to war politically about control of the country. It was decidedly religious nationalism that lead to much of the conflict.
And in an ironic almost prophetic way
the Verse of the Day on PPP.info is:
Romans 13:1
Rom.13:1 is one of the most misinterpreted verses in the Bible.
Rick
You are wrong in your reading of History. The original colonisation of Ireland was in the 16th and 17th centuries – by Anglo-Irish families (remember that many of the national boundaries we see now are assumed not ethnic) who were given or claimed many of the ‘noble’ titles.
However, the real problem was with the granting of land to Scottish protestants into some of the counties of Ulster by James Stuart and later monarchs. It is this religious division between the protestant and unionist (in the old, traditional sense) northern inhabitants and the catholic and ‘home rule’ supporting southern (and western) counties that led to the partition in 1918, in order to preserve the religious liberties of the protestant majority of this area (rightly, or wrongly).
It really isn’t an English issue, more of a Scottish one – hence the partisanship that can be seen in Glasgow based upon loyalties with different sections of the Irish community.
(For what it’s worth I’m a blend of Irish, Cornish, Gypsy and other bits – something of a mongrel!!)
You may be more historically accurate, but my premise was that the Protestant/Catholic divide was coincidental; it just so happened the Scottish were Protestant and the Irish were Roman Catholic.
But preacahers like Ian Paisley were contrary to the gospel of Christ.
No – it was a deliberate campaign to populate the northern counties with Protestants because they were protestant.
Ian, the point you’re missing is that the moment the bombs, guns and outright warfare come into play, one must question how far Christ is involved. I think that’s the point being made.
People do all sorts of things in the name of Christ, but that does not mean it has a thing to do with Him. He might be a vehicle and a rallying point, but that’s it.
I am not. I am saying that religion is at the centre of the conflict – but that doesn’t mean that Christ is.
OK, I can accept that.
Now look at the quote again (not you, but anyone) and simply compare the atrocities of the 20th century committed by atheists and those committed religiously and you will quickly conclude that atheism has a lot more blood on its hands than religion.
Religion is empty and man-made, but has an outer shell of God, while atheism is completely devoid of God which comes with much worse consequences.
Of course, religion has little to do with salvation or Christ.
Paul C.,
Statistically you are right. But one could say that killing in the name of God is worse than killing in the name of non-god… therefore a worse evil.
In a purely philosophical way.
I understand your viewpoint and I personally detest when people use religious reasons to justify evil.
But when you re-read the quote Jerry quoted, I just don’t see it holding water. Isn’t the guy who made the quote (conveniently) an atheist.
People come up with these kind of quotes all the time to justify their own selves – just like the Pope who justifies a Crusade, or indulgences, or trusting in false doctrine because of papal authority, etc…
No.
“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction.”
Mohammed Atta
#22: I stand corrected.
Paul asked,
No, his name was Blaise Pascal, a 17th Century mathematician and religious philosopher
#24
“he gave … teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the UNITY OF THE FAITH and of the knowledge of the Son of God ” – Ephesians 4:11-13
Sorry Brett – having a hard time understanding your increasingly cryptic messages.
Please clarify.
and even if Pascal was an atheist…he would still be right.
#28 word!
#28: how do you figure? By what evidence?
I think the thing you’re missing in the quote, Paul, is the “completely and cheerfully” part. Yes, atheists have committed atrocities, but they generally didn’t have someone telling them they would get an eternal reward for doing it.
i’m more reacting to the idea that somehow we shouldn’t take someone’s position seriously because of being “an atheist” or whatever…
also, “religious conviction”…
could easily apply to an atheist….
atheism is an expression of the “religious” impulse in humans…
#31: Just because someone’s not motivated by an eternal reward, it doesn’t mean they are not motivated. Atheists who commit atrocities are just as motivated as their religious counterparts, though they act for temporal reasons. And they go to their work as “completely and cheerfully” as their religious cousins do. It is an unbalanced statement in this regard.
Also, people commit atrocities for a-religious reasons as well. Bombing Hiroshima & Nagasaki was done by a “Christian leader” but not for religious reasons. Bush went into Iraq for oil.
#32: well, a lot of the time people make statements to further validate their own point, like Christopher Hitchens declaring that a “denial of evolution is tantamount to denying the Holocaust.”
I just don’t agree with this. I think that in the case of atheist regimes, people will carry out the evil will of a leader mainly because of two reasons. Either nationalism (which at its heart is a type of religion) or fear. If a person is doing something out of fear, he just isn’t going to be as motivated as from religious conviction.
I guess I just can’t see why you’re arguing against the quote, unless you think that it’s a weapon to be used against Christians somehow.
I am arguing against it only because it lacks the balance that your comment actually bears out.
You say that atheistic regimes operate on nationalism and/or fear.
Religious atrocity leverages fear as well in order to convince adherents to follow along (witness the RCC). Do you agree with that?
They’re virtually 2 sides of the same coin. Hence my disagreement.
i still atrocities, of whatever magnitude, done in the name of God are far more distasteful.
I guess I’m saying that “religious conviction” can come from all kinds of different sources – the church, nationalism, racism, atheism, etc. You seem to be assuming that the Pascal was only talking about religious conviction as it pertains to Christians or other theists. I don’t see why the quote should be read that way.
Phil, I’ll wager that he was probably referring to theistic religion, probably what he was witnessing in the RCC. In this context, I think there’s a point to be made, but it’s not balanced.
is balance always a sign of legitimacy?
“unless you hate your mother and father…”
#41: correctly interpreted, “love less” your mother or your father. In other words, God is supreme. No unbalance there.
ah, but there’s the rub…
“correctly interpreted”….
love the Lord your God with your…[whole self]…
Rejoicing in another’s misfortune while touting your own “prophetess” status.
Spewing evil from a religious conviction in a post modern world – here.
watch out Rick, you’re getting dangerously close to cyber-rape.
just a little reminder.