Even if last century was not the bloodiest per capita (as per Steven Pinker) my point was that, given that the great genocides mentioned were driven by secular and atheistic agendas (whether on the left or right), the claim that the removal of religion from the world would avoid such and bring peace, etc., (as in “No-religion-is-peace”)is simply false. A particular ideological or religious belief will often provide the motivation and driving force for war, but then there are many that do just the opposite.

Instead, we should look for something more universal and basic–human nature itself. Pinker was right in debunking “the noble savage” myth. He assumes the natural corruption of mankind as the base cause of violence and then looks at modern trends that tend to ameliorate that tendency.

The question that should be asked is what part does a particular ideology, religion or world view play in the justification or condemnation of violence? And, even more basic, whether our own world view provides legitimate grounds for condemning or justifying violence.

“Freak”
“1. Any abnormal phenomenon or product or unusual object; anomaly; aberration.
2. A person or animal on exhibition as an example of a strange deviation from nature; monster. . . .”

So a freak is a person (or something) that has deviated from the norm in some way.

So is a “religious freak” A. an abnormal person who has become religious? B. Everyone who is religious must thereby be a freak? or C. A person who, unlike normal religious persons, is abnormally religious?

To categorize Akiane or Marjo Gortner, say, or all post-WWII US presidents, or even Joan of Arc, with the religious or non-religious tyrants being discussed here, in itself, seems to me, run-away enthusiasm.

I was only reprinting straight from The Atlantic’s website. I wonder how the Atlantic managed to miss-attribute that quote. Thanks for the substitute.

Last century was the bloodiest of all mankind has known. The freaks at the forefront: Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc., could hardly be said to be religious or operating from religious motivations.

Well, in one sense, you are right. The worst monsters of the 20th century were not religious, which contradicts Lewis’s quote. But despite the horrible actions of these men, the 20th century was actually the least bloody century we have on record, per capita. So in addition to what boris has pointed out, the reason we had more deaths in the 20th century in large part due to the huge number of people living in that century. Here are a few choice quotes from the linked article:

In the decade of Darfur and Iraq, and shortly after the century of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, the claim that violence has been diminishing may seem somewhere between hallucinatory and obscene. Yet recent studies that seek to quantify the historical ebb and flow of violence point to exactly that conclusion.

If the wars of the twentieth century had killed the same proportion of the population that die in the wars of a typical tribal society, there would have been two billion deaths, not 100 million.

The decline of violence is a fractal phenomenon, visible at the scale of millennia, centuries, decades, and years. It applies over several orders of magnitude of violence, from genocide to war to rioting to homicide to the treatment of children and animals. And it appears to be a worldwide trend, though not a homogeneous one. The leading edge has been in Western societies, especially England and Holland, and there seems to have been a tipping point at the onset of the Age of Reason in the early seventeenth century.

(emphasis mine)

As we all know, as the Age of Reason took hold in Europe, religious influence on government decreased. Thus I would claim that C.S. Lewis is still right, religious freaks make the worst kind.

it’s been previously explained: the reason this century was this “bloody” was simply because of superior technology. think about the times of the 100 year war, and what would have happened if they had todays weapons and tech.

and i’m glad to hear that hitler, stalin and pol pot were just missing religion… cause we all know how peaceful religious people are. they would NEVER engage in wars or conflicts of any kind. what a BS argument…

also, don’t forget american presidents… “men of god” all of them, yet somehow i don’t think there was a single presidency since WW2 without a war that was in some way initiated by the US.

But there is a quote from Ch 3 of Reflections of interest here: “If the Divine call does not make us better, it will make us very much worse. Of all bad men, religious bad men are the worst. . . .” Another way of saying it may be that religious freaks are the the worst kind. I generally agree, but sometimes wonder. Last century was the bloodiest of all mankind has known. The freaks at the forefront: Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc., could hardly be said to be religious or operating from religious motivations. That said, you might say that they were operating with “religious” fervour, from an ultimate commitment. With that I would agree.

Has anyone here defined what a freak is?

Sid, sorry to keep our discussion in limbo. I hope to get an opportunity later today (NZ time).

The other quote does seem more likely to be from “Miracles,” with which I am only remotely familiar. “Mere Christianity” is one of the best works, long or short, on apologetics I know of.

“I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others. And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to rulers and to the subjects. Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant a robber barron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations.

And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be. A metaphysic held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign. It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated. In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political programme can never in reality be more than probably right. We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future. To attach to a party programme — whose highest claim is to reasonable prudence — the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication,” - C.S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms, ch. 3.

From this page on The Atlantic Online website.

FYI, Neando, my response is up on my website.