Three Centuries Of Christian Atrocities

[SteveII]

There is a difference between people committing atrocities, and atrocities being mandated from government and government leaders such as these most Christian emperors.  Policy in these cases created for religious reasons.

Germany in the 30's is another sad example.

No, there is not. Not at all. The only difference is the level of power one holds.

You cannot judge an ideology by its abuses. Modifying the word atrocities with 'Christian' is ridiculous. Would you accept Stalin's activities characterized as 'atheist atrocities' or 'marxist atrocities'? No, of course not.

Why ideology can not be judged by its abuses (or what is called abuses but in reality is merely result of following ideology to it's logical conclusion)?

I would accept Stalin atrocities being called marxist-leninist atrocities (in fact I am doing such myself) or religious atrocities* as such  attributions are perfectly reasonable.


*If by some bizzare hapestance you know Polish then check Rafał Imos Faith of The Soviet Man. If not check Totalitarianism and Political Religions Volume II, chapter 6 Marxism-Leninism as political religion by Klaus-Georg Riegel whose concluding observations you can read below:

As has become evident from the discussion to this point, the political religions that have been investigated here involve virtuoso religions that were developed by intellectuals as comprehensive systems by which both to explain the world and to change it through revolution. In all these virtuoso religions, the intellectuals represent a messianic mission. The revolutionary virtuosos emerge as representatives of human masses that are not yet mentally independent; and they promise to save these masses from their suffering.

Both the pre-revolutionary intelligentsia of tsarist Russia and its Marxist successor had performed this messianic mission with enough decisiveness to attain in the world, through particular forms of social organisation, that which they understood as the saving truths. We are not dealing, therefore, with virtuosos fleeing from the world and cultivating their sociologies in monastic communities that are secluded from the world.

The virtuoso religions of both the tsarist and the Marxist intelligentsia pressed for a revolutionary transformation of the world. Certainly, they differ in terms of content and of the organisational forms of their world toppling ideas of salvation. In his conscious confrontation with the pneumatically inspired communities of conviction of the narodnicestvo, with the revolutionary secret alliances and with the open social democracy of Menshevism, Lenin developed a model of discipline and military-like trainingof revolutionary virtuosos that was to transform revolutionary enthusiasm into an effectively functioning disciplined machine. (To be sure, the reality was a far cry from the functional efficiency that had been envisaged.) This course that Lenin took with his model of the disciplined cadre party also paved the way for Stalin’s institutional course – which was to develop further in the direction of a bureaucratised and hierarchised soteriological

of historical development were being actively promoted connected up with institution.  [...]In all the virtuoso religions within the sphere of Marxism-Leninism that have been described, a selective enlistment of Christian symbols and faith practices can clearly be recognised. The chiliastic hopes for salvation of the ‘Order of the Revolutionary Intelligentsia’ (F. Stepun), its public confessions and preparedness for heroic self-sacrifice as atonement for unearned privileges, its forms of self-organisation as pneumatically inspired conviction communities: these all draw upon the monastic communities that had formed either in reliance upon or in decisive rejection of the Russian Orthodox Church. Even the Leninist discipline machine recalls the type of the ‘revolutionary monk’ (S. Frank). The rites of purgation and purification, the catechisms and holy dogmas, the strict orders of command and exercises of ritual obedience that were practised within its ranks, occurred according to the model of ‘cloister rules’ (S. Frank). The Lenin cult that was then staged by Stalin and his rivals in the faith created a sacral faith tradition, complete with a canon of sacral scriptures, that could be selectively used to support one’s own claim to rule. The Stalinist cult of personality was also oriented towards an institutional church that knew how to assert the hierocratic power of its office by means of inquisition tribunals.[...] The Marxist-Leninist currents of faith represented religions of innerworldy salvation. They took from the sacral Marxist stock the certainty that their revolutionary efforts were in harmony with the scientific regularities that Marx had supposedly discovered. The scientific certainty that the laws the salvation doctrine that was also present in Marx’s work: the doctrine of liberating a humanity that suffers under capitalistic alienation and of leading it into a communistic paradise on earth through revolutionary deeds.

Scientific certainty and mandate for salvation were executed by the successful organisation of a ‘monks’ army’ (S. Frank) of career revolutionaries. The amalgamation of scientific certainty, mandate for salvation and revolutionary virtuosity produced an inner-worldly political religion.

No they are not reasonable. Stalin's actions are not justified by Marxism–Leninism no more than the crusades are justified by Christian doctrine.

The logic of calling them such things leads to all kinds of silly conclusions. You imply a connection that does not exist. Why not call them white men atrocities, or 20th century atrocities? Adding a modifier to atrocities that in only incidental conveys no meaning--and certainly not the meaning you intend.