Friday quote: Lenin's great achievement
by KrauzeToday's lesson in history comes courtesy of Christopher Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything:
"One of Lenin's great achievements, in my opinion, is to create a secular Russia. The power of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was an absolute warren of backwardness and evil and superstition, is probably never going to recover from what he did to it."
Indeed. Some of Lenin's "great achievements" were the executions of 8.000 people who resisted his theft of church relics. To quote the great man himself: "[W]e can (and therefore must) pursue the acquisition of [church] valuables with the most ferocious and merciless energy, stopping at nothing in suppressing all resistance."
You know, before the New Atheists start comparing themselves to civil rights movements, they ought to confront the authoritarian tendencies displayed by some of its prominent spokesmen.
August 10th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Krauze,
Perfect.
Lately, on my blog, I have pushed the theme that the New Atheist movement lacks any serious intellectual muscle. That Dawkins et. al are sort of "pinheads for the cause," in that they cannot compare to intellectual atheists of the past (I always use Bertrand Russell as an example of a competent and thus in some sense scary atheist–one who asked questions that had to be taken seriously–as opposed to Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens, who are Barney-Fife comical and anything but scary. Although they do look snappy in their uniforms!)
You have provided me with more fodder. Thanks!
Comment by David Heddle — August 10, 2007 @ 11:12 am
August 10th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
According to Kallistos Ware in his book The Orthodox Church, in 1914 there were 54,174 Orthodox churches in Russia, 51,105 priests and deacons, 94,629 monks and nuns. By 1939 each of these numbers were reduced to a few hundred. Where did all those clergy and monastics go? Those that were not murdered outright were sent to die in the camps. There were also 1,304 hospitals and homes for the aged run by the Russian Church in 1914. By 1939 they were all gone and forbidden by law. The picture is the same for Ukranian, Romanian and other Orthodox churches that came under Soviet domination. Of the tens of millions people who perished under Lenin and Stalin, a good half of them did so because they were guilty of the political crime of being Christian.
Hitchens believes this is a "great achievment" When someone as famous and influential as he says these things it makes me believe the coming century will be as murderous as the last. As an Orthodox Christian myself, excuse me if I don't view Hitchens as a "comical Barney Fife".
Comment by Stuart Harris — August 10, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
I think Hitchens is wrong on three accounts.
1. What Lenin's attack on religious freedom was not a great achievement, it was a crime.
2. If the church had ever been as strong as Hitchens claims the Bolsheviks would never have seized power in the first place.
3. The EOC is probably as strong now as it was when Lenin and his thugs took power. Ironically, the belief in Darwinism is as low in Russia as it is in the USA.
Comment by Jehu — August 10, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Yet another shining example of the sort of reason and peace that comes with the New Atheist worldview. I wonder if Hitchens really can fit in alongside Dawkins and the others – isn't their tact normally that the past atheistic regimes were barbaric and unreasonable and, therefore, actually religious?
(Does that mean Hitchens himself is a believer of sorts? I wonder how he'd take the accusation.)
Comment by nullasalus — August 10, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
This is, quite simply, outrageous. Why is there no uproar about such a statement? Imagine the following statements:
One of Hitler's great achievements, in my opinion, is to create an Arian Germany. The power of the Jewish merchant class, which was an absolute warren of backwardness and evil and superstition, is probably never going to recover from what he did to it.
Or how about this:
One of the South's great achievements, in my opinion, is to create a white dominated society. The power of the Negro race, which was an absolute warren of backwardness and evil and superstition, is probably never going to recover from what they did to it.
This is beyond parody. It's infuriating.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — August 10, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
I find it outrageous when a/theists compare body counts to decide who's better.
Comment by Rock — August 10, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
August 10th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
i may find myself agreeing with rock: lets not compare body counts. lets compare frankness…sometimes the church, as a visible institution, has killed a good many people. were the reasons good? were they bad? in my opinion, the reasons arent much important. to say its a shame that my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ were so misguided as to cause a good deal of suffering, pain, and the like, is to put it way too mildly. as a christian today, i would say i take full responsibility for the actions, misguided or not, of those before me, and it is my social responsibility to not only public acknoledge these short comings (another understatment), but it is also my responsibility to see that in my community (the church), such tragedies do not have an opportunity to happen again. let us turn to the frankness of dawkins et al in concerns of hitchens. most of my time is spent watching interviews, lectures, etc, etc by the new athiests, as well as any comments by their critics. i have yet to hear them make any critical remarks about the beliefs, actions, or public statements of their fellow new athiests, no matter how idiotic the statement was. if i have overlooked something, i would be more than glad if someone pointed it out to me so i can take a look at it.
but, let us continue….the fact that i find one set to be more frank than another does not mean that christianity is better or that the church hasnt been very bad in the past or even isnt being bad right now. in fact, my frankeness, i would say, shows just how guilty i am. are the new athiests guilty of any thing, nonfrankness or beasty public statements? im not sure that i find that question that interesting. i am more concerned with my own community (notice that i also said that i spend a good deal of time researching the new athiest community: this time is used to gather the ideas they are kicking around, so as to apply them or process them through my community.)
whos better? again, an uninteresting question (to me). though they say they are better, great. im more concerned with aiding in the progress of my community. let the new athiests say what they want about themselves or about me.
Comment by dantedanti — August 10, 2007 @ 10:31 pm
August 11th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Hi all,
While slightly off topic there is something else the "New Atheists" are doing…
…writing how-to books on raising childen as Atheists.
I'm curious as the how people on TT will react
(of course there is always the possibility they won't say anything).
Here is a link…
http://www.parentingbeyondbelief.com/
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 11, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
August 11th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Russian Orthodox Church calls for morals to be taught in schools:
Comment by stunney — August 11, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
August 12th, 2007 at 3:16 am
Hi Thought Provoker,
Why do you think this collection of essays is written by "New Atheists" Is it because Richard Dawkins was a contributor?
Comment by inunison — August 12, 2007 @ 3:16 am
August 12th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Hi Inunison,
You asked…
I used the term "New Atheists" in an attempt to be provocative. I do not know what separates a "New Atheist" from just a plain old "Atheist" except for its use as a propaganda tool.
If there is any validity to the label, it seems this book would apply since it claims to be a first and, yes, Richard Dawkins is a contributor.
I will turn the question around and ask you,
Why wouldn't it be considered a product of the alleged "New Atheist" movement?
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 12, 2007 @ 11:06 am
August 12th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
In other news….
link
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 12, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
August 12th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Hi Thought Provoker,
To answer your question I would invite you to read FAQ section of that link that you provided.
I see nothing provocative about this book (just by reading the intro). But maybe you know something that I don't. Have you read the book yourself?
And how is that news from Jakarta relevant to this post?
Comment by inunison — August 12, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
August 12th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Hi Inunison,
I asked you why you would even question the book as a work product of what Krauze called the "New Atheists". The fact that you did question it is an indication that my statement was, indeed, provocative. Your attempt to shift the burden to me (asking me to go read the FAQ I have already read) isn't overly surprising. I wasn't claiming the book was provocative, that was the point.
The alleged "New Atheists" aren't just anti-Christian. While I am sure you would like to keep this thread focused on what you see as the stupidity of the New Atheists, we have already had a violation of Godwin's Law with no one complaining. I didn't feel it would be too out of line to bring in this news article in a thread discussing a book titled, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
If Krauze wanted to throw my comment into the memory hole I doubt I would even say anything, especially now that the point has been made.
Thank you for your help in this endeavor.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 12, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
August 12th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Hi Thought Provoker (not)
I did not question the book, instead I questioned your claim.
How on Earth did you get to this conclusion? You have no idea of what I see or think about Hitchens' statement.
Comment by inunison — August 12, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
August 12th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Hi Inunision,
You wrote…
On this, we agree.
I have an "idea" based on you questioning my claim.
However, I don't know what you think. Why don't you tell us?
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 12, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
August 12th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Rock,
I wasn't using a body count to say one thing or another. One can acknowledge that atheists and theists have both committed atrocities. There might even be some way of saying who has done worse – it is fairly easy to argue that atheists have been worse in the 20th century, and that even the inquisition at its worse was never as bad as the khamr rouge.
But this isn't the point. The point is that on both sides, one would hope, we agree that these things were horrible and atrocious – both the religious and secular atrocities. And here Hitchens is praising the violent assault on the Orthodox Church to high heaven. THIS is what is unacceptable.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — August 12, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
August 12th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Hi All,
Since Inunision hinted that I might have not addressed the topic with my previous comments, I have decided to rectify that, starting with verifying what the interview was actually about. Guess what? It had nothing to do with the "New Atheists". The words "Atheists" and "Atheism" are no where to be found. And "God" is mentioned only once, in this context…
"But, there is in human beings an ability to see beyond existing conditions or to always ask why they are the way that they are and to conclude that it's not because of God or nature that some people are rich and some are poor. Some are free and some are not."
It turns out this interview is focused on Hitchen's views of socialism, not religon. He is identified as the author of Blood, Class and Empire: The Enduring Anglo-American Relationship. The interview is about the Russian revolution and how the Russian Orthodox Church used its influence in support of the Romanovs (the Czar and his extended family "White Russians").
Do you have any idea how convoluted the Russian civil war was? As a wargamer, I have re-enacted it using special rules. To add realism to the game, each opponent gets to run some of the other side's units. The Red Russians killed more than 8,000 people on their own side. It wasn't a bloodless war by any stretch of the imagination.
Inunision was right, all of this is off topic.
This has nothing to do with "New Atheists".
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 12, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
August 12th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Please check my comment in moderation, thanks.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 12, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
August 13th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
A world-wide Solanum outbreak could totally reverse Lenin's work, you know. Clap hard enough and you might be blessed with those magical zombie hordes.
(Any other World War Z fans here? Anyone?)
Comment by grendelkhan — August 13, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
August 13th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
This may surprise many of you who have read any of my TT posts in the past, but I actually agree with Dawkins, Harris and Hitchins etc. They believe that the vast majority of the world's religions are silly, stupid and superstitious. So do I. The difference between them and me, however, is that I have a religious belief that I don't think is silly, stupid or superstitious. I imagine people with a religion that I think is sort of stupid feel the same about what they believe. Furthermore, I don't think it is the place of anybody (especially intellectuals who believe they are smarter than any one else) in a free democratic society to dictate what other people believe. In other words, people have the right to believe in something that other people think is irrational or just plain ridiculous. The US constitution agrees with me. The first amendment guarantees to any person living in this country the "free exercise" of religion. The constitution does not stipulate what kind of religion it is. It can be good, bad, silly, superstitious or stupid. Furthermore, religion is not simply something that is to be tolerated in a free open society like ours it is a fundamental right.
The more I understand of the "new atheist" thinking the more I think that it is not simply anti religious but anti democratic and anti human rights. Furthermore there is nothing new about. It is the same old hatred and bigotry and intolerance that has haunted human society since the beginning of time.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 13, 2007 @ 11:41 pm
August 14th, 2007 at 12:42 am
John,
I'm not aware that any of the "New Atheists" claim that you don't have the right to believe something because they consider it irrational.
Could you supply a quote?
Comment by keiths — August 14, 2007 @ 12:42 am
August 14th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Keiths,
What about what Hitchens said above?
Of course, he did leave himself a little wiggle room. You guys always do.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 14, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
August 14th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
John,
To see just how far off you are in selecting Hitchens as a target, listen to this speech he gave earlier this year.
Comment by keiths — August 14, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
August 15th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Keiths: I prefer transcripts or things that I can speed read. I simply don't have the time to do either audio or video (as nice as some people may think those things are) Why don't you give me a quote or two that will correct my misperceptions of Hitchens.
If not maybe you can explain to me how it is a good thing for a government persecute and indeed execute members of an established religious faith like the Russian Orthadox Church. Didn't Hitchens say that it was a good thing in his PBS interview?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 15, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
August 16th, 2007 at 12:06 am
John wrote:
John,
Some things, like poetry, lovemaking and good speeches, aren't meant to be rushed. Why not listen to Hitchens' speech while you're making dinner, or eating? It's only 20 minutes long, and it's the best speech I've heard in years.
It's been a while since I listened to it, but one particularly wise point that Hitchens makes (though expressed more eloquently) is that free speech is as valuable to those hearing unpopular views as it is to those expressing them, because otherwise we become the prisoners of our own opinions.
No. Hitchens said that it was good that Lenin created a secular Russia, not that it was good that he persecuted and killed believers.
Similarly, I think it was good that the Allies defeated the Nazis in WWII, but I don't think the firebombing of Dresden was a good thing.
Comment by keiths — August 16, 2007 @ 12:06 am
August 16th, 2007 at 9:02 am
John,
I listened again to the Hitchens speech and transcribed this portion in which he specifically defends your right to believe in and express your support for the idea of intelligent design:
Comment by keiths — August 16, 2007 @ 9:02 am
August 16th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Keiths wrote:
Hmmmm"¦."Some things, like poetry, lovemaking and good speeches, aren't meant to be rushed." What about religious experience: prayer meditation or worship? Did you intentionally leave those things out? (Of course you did, you're an atheist!)
Thank you, very much for the transcription. I'll try to listen to Hitchens sometime when I find the time. However, I don't think my impression of Hitchens is going to change no matter how eloquently he speaks. I am not totally unfamiliar with Mr. Hitchens indeed I liked some of the articles that he wrote for the, Atlantic Monthly, and I heard him interviewed on TV a couple of times. I really had a favorable first impression. I would say that I found him an intelligent, articulate and erudite man. I don't think I knew then that he was an atheist. But, I don't think that would have made a difference. I consider myself to be pretty open-minded. I have even had a couple of atheists as friends. (Notice That I said had for some reason they don't hang around very long. Is it something I said?)
My opinion Christopher Hitchens changed the week Jerry Falwell died. Now I should explain I have never been a supporter of Falwell or his ministry. Indeed, as a Christian myself I have found some things he said to be an embarrassment to the cause of Christ. And, unlike Hitchens I never read anything that he wrote. (Did Falwell ever write anything?)
Mr. Hitchens could not resist launching into vitriolic tirade of hate filled rhetoric directed at the just deceased Falwell. Try to explain away the following:
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/05/16/christopher-hitchens-mourns-jerry-falwell-in-his-own-way/2
Who was Hitchens trying to hurt here? Falwell? I thought atheist didn't believe in the soul? Was he trying to hurt Falwell's friends and family? Why? Is the answer to hate, hate? Do atheists believe in civility or courtesy or are those things that need to be banished along with God, superstition and those credulous religious idiots?
I'll have to hand it to Hitchens, however, he out did anything that Falwell said or did while he was alive. What a class act! ( I said facetiously)
I notice that the EA's at Telic Thought are always quick to whine about the cheap shot. Well it looks like one of your guy's got in the ultimate cheap shot.
BTW Falwell publicly apologized for some of the things he said. Has Hitchens ever apologized about this?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 16, 2007 @ 11:21 pm
August 16th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
What in the world is Hitchens supposed to apologize for? Everything he wrote about Falwell was spot on.
Falwell was a public figure who made his reputation and fortune peddling ignorance and hatred, and to pretend that he is somehow immune from criticism after death is puerile. He deserves no courtesy.
You said:
Did you ever publically criticize Falwell for the stupid thing he said? Or did you let him get away with besmirching the reputation of your faith? If the latter, you are the one who should be apologizing, not Hitchens. If you wonder why intelligent people identify Christianity with ignorance, hatred, and yahooism, you have yourself to blame along with the Falwells of the world.
BTW, if you want to start trying to disassociate Christianity from hateful, lawbreaking, superstitious yahoos, you can start by doing something about this guy:
Comment by mtraven — August 16, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
August 16th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
For being an insensitive jerk. Falwell has grieving family members for one thing.
Proving you don't have to be religious to be arrogant and judgemental.
Fine. I'll remember that the next time the target is someone you feel more kindly disposed toward.
Comment by Bradford — August 16, 2007 @ 11:59 pm
August 17th, 2007 at 12:08 am
The reason some people so identify is explained by their own ignorance and hatred. Bigotry is alive and well and evidenced by blanket hate-filled accusations against tens of millions in the USA alone who consider themselves Christians.
Comment by Bradford — August 17, 2007 @ 12:08 am
August 17th, 2007 at 1:37 am
You seem to have some reading comprehension difficulties. I did not make any accusations against tens of millions of Christans — I said that Christianity had become identified with hatred and idiocy, and that this is at least in part the fault of ordinary, non-hating, non-idiot Christians, of which I'm sure there are many, who are perfectly willing to stand by and let people like Falwell, Pat Robertson, Ted Haggard, Ken Ham, and this Drake guy become the public face of their religion.
It's a mystery to me — I assume that the majority of Christians are not hateful ignorant fanatics. Yet they seem perfectly willing to let themselves be led by them. Where are the non-hateful, non-idiot Christian leaders? A few decades ago Christianity produced people like Martin Luther King Jr and William Sloane Coffin, not to mention the Berrigan brothers. These were Christians who were not afraid to challenge Caesar, rather than sucking up to him the way the Christian right does today.
Mind, not being a Christian or religious it doesn't bother me that much that you've let your faith become debased. But it really ought to bother you.
Comment by mtraven — August 17, 2007 @ 1:37 am
August 17th, 2007 at 7:42 am
The reason some people so identify is explained by their own ignorance and hatred. Bigotry is alive and well and evidenced by blanket hate-filled accusations against tens of millions in the USA alone who consider themselves Christians.
OK, try this. Atheism has become identified with hatred and idiocy, and that this is at least in part the fault of ordinary, non-hating, non-idiot atheists. My comprehension is fine. So is my understanding of the Archie Bunker mentality that provokes your guilt by association logic.
Comment by Bradford — August 17, 2007 @ 7:42 am
August 17th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Ah, the Peewee Herman argument you guys are so fond of.
Comment by mtraven — August 17, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
August 18th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Mtraven wrote:
As a matter of fact, as far back as the mid 1980's, I have been involved in some public criticism of Falwell. But who am I? I have no power to coerce change in another person and even if I did it would be morally, and legally wrong for me to do so. As I said earlier:
"People have the right to believe in something that other people think is irrational or just plain ridiculous. The US constitution agrees with me. The first amendment guarantees to any person living in this country the "˜free exercise' of religion. The constitution does not stipulate what kind of religion it is. It can be good, bad, silly, superstitious or stupid. Furthermore, religion is not simply something that is to be tolerated in a free open society like ours it is a fundamental right."
In other words, Falwell had a constitutional right to what he believed and what he said and the way he believed and said it. His followers had the constitutional rights to be (in your words) idiots and follow his teaching and preaching. Furthermore, it was not simply a freedom of religion, but a matter of the freedom of speech, the freedom of press and the freedom of assembly.
Ironically, on the surface Hitchens seems to agree with me here. In the speech quoted by Keiths he said:
So, a Holocaust denier is someone whose beliefs and freedom of speech are to be tolerated and respected, but someone like Falwell isn't? Explain to me what the difference is?
Personally I think we have operating here what I call the "kook" factor. Holocaust denier's and Flat Earthers can be tolerated because they are so ridiculous and marginalized that they pose no foreseeable threat to society. Someone like "Moral Majority" founder Falwell, on the other hand, who was able to influence millions of people, became a genuine threat to people who disagreed with his political and religious views. In other words, Hitchens will talk all day long about defending the constitutional rights certain kinds of kooks so that it will appear that he is a defender of western democratic values and human rights. But the truth is Hitchens is a fake. He is a narrow-minded bigot who would restrict the rights of certain undesirable types.
So what is your vision for society? A utopia where an educated elite micromanages the thinking of a non intellectual herd? I am kind of curious to what you think.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 18, 2007 @ 7:02 pm
August 18th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Who said anything about coercion? Hitchens and I both believe in the right of free speech. That means that Falwell, or a Holocaust denier, has the right to say stupid things, and I have the right to call him a fucking idiot who is damaging society. Everyone gets a right to say their piece, nobody has a right to be respected. Got that? It's not complicated.
If you can find an actual quote from Hitchens that says that Falwell's right to free speech should be restricted, or anything of the kind, I'd like to see it.
I don't know where you are getting your ridiculous ideas.
My vision of society is one where people are smart enough to distinguish truth from bullshit on their own. Utopia indeed.
Comment by mtraven — August 18, 2007 @ 9:51 pm
September 23rd, 2007 at 12:49 am
Christopher Hitchens is clueless. Look at what is happening in formerly athiest Russia.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/world/europe/23russia.html?hp
Comment by Jehu — September 23, 2007 @ 12:49 am
September 27th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Hasn't atheism killed more people in history than any religion?
Comment by Trent/Ubuntu — September 27, 2007 @ 5:08 pm