Because Women never commit violent crimes.

We commit them far less than men do, anyways. =/

That's not to say I endorse SS's facetious statement. ^_^

Considering everything, the percentage of violent crimes commited by women is less than the percentage commited by non-Christians.

Slavery. It still exists today in many countries and its variants are as wide and the human imagination.

With holocust, the people are dead, no longer to be tortured & abused. Should the act be carried on long enough the victims are exhausted or the source of the acts is snuffed out by those who fear its spread.

Slavery on the other hand is tolerated & met with apathy because people profit from it. Its many forms are difficult to bring under one idea and thus is hard to pin down unlike straight up death.

Then one wonders why you aren't laying blame at the feet of the people who perpetuate atrocities under the guise of Christianity. The armies and the kings and the countries who go to war.

I can only assume you don't lay the blame where it belongs because you're too busy with all the cocks that need to be sucked.

I think you're talking about the Catholic church more then Christianity and religion in general.

Just sayin'

PS. Why are all non-religious people so anti-religion? It can't just be "oh they believe in god, whatever" Its, "Why are people so stupid religion causes war, cancer, and erectile disfunction~"
Its like they are terrified of the though of someone thinking differently then them. I'm not saying Arainach is doing that, but I see it all the time elsewhere.

You forget how it's also been used as an argument against other White Christian Men since saying Christianity is a singular force is like saying Americans have the same political viewpoint.

On the original topic, I personally don't think there is a point in comparing between the significance of different atrocities, in some sense it is rather a relative issue depending on your views. However, whatever your political objective or social issue is that you care about, its important for you to bring attention to those issues or injustices. Though I don't think it brings the issue into proper perspective if you can only see an issue in the light of other atrocities.

Simple: I leave them be as long as they leave me be. They're perfectly fine until they start legislating their morality on me. And given that today's churches are nothing but disguised PACs, I despise all organized religions.

Some religious people are great individuals. But without exception I haven't found a religion (except Quakerism and Buddhism) that isn't an intrusive crock of shit.

I'm going to have to go with slavery. It's true that victims of both travesties were dehumanized, but I would wager that more people were killed as part of the Holocaust than as part of slavery. For one, the slaveowners would have no benefit from killing their source of labor. Likewise, isn't death a release from the physical torture? Morbid and macabre as that may sound, I would much rather die than be unable to exercise free will. =/

I'm sure little Ester Evangalist was giving you a ton of lip before you gave us the enlightening factoid that religion has kiled a whole lot of people.

What do you mean "unchallenged dictatorial rule"? Secular rulers challenged the authority of the Church all the time. You should read about the time the King of France had the Pope kidnapped and beaten half to death.

On the subject of religion: while I don't believe that it has killed a vast number of people on its own, I DO agree with the idea that it has been used to justify the actions of those in power at the time said violence occurred.

For example, religious truth was the moral pillar that turned the Crusades from mere warmongering to a noble endeavor. The Roman Catholic Church pretty much ruled the world long ago, and their inherent position as a religious organization allowed others to turn a blind eye to any atrocities being committed under their noses.

Unchallenged was the wrong word, then. ...hrm...

Oh, hell, just drop "unchallenged", then. It just sounds more evil with it in there, that's all.

The Holocaust lead to more malicious torture and pain, I think, as a lot of what was done to the Jews was done just because the German's didn't like them, and a lot of what was done to the slaves was to keep them in line. There was also not as much deliberate killing proportionally, because slaves had a purpose and Jews were apparently just a problem.

That said, in both situations an entire people were deemed as "sub human" and treated worse than men usually treat their animals. There's really no way to compare, they both sucked.

Also, wow some people are really anti Christian. I'm personally agnostic and don't care either way, and I don't know that much about Christianity's history, but I can say that there's been a hell of a lot of killing in Asia that had pretty much nothing to do with religion. In fact, by sheer number of deaths alone, the Holocaust pales to the Great Leap Forward and then the Cultural Revolution in China when the CCP came to power, and religion practically didn't exist any more at that time. Hell Japan has attacked Korea out of sheer boredom before. Disagreements over religion has caused a great deal of death, but there are parts of the world where the fighting between religious factions wasn't nearly as bad, and we didn't need any of that to kill people. I personally think religion just serves as a mask for some people's greed; if they weren't religious they'd probably be assholes anyway, but since they are it provides a handy excuse for them to not feel like assholes.

In a way the Holocaust, religion and slavery all interlink for one simple reason, they all involved man having intolerance to views that didn't mirror their own. So for that reason they regarded all other opinions as false and/or worthless without even really learning about them, queue slavery for the less well off people, brainwashing and of course the biggest lol stupid excuse to kill ever 'holy wars'.

I'm not saying religion is bad but it's like anything else made by man easily corrupted. Getting back to the question though the Holocaust wins for being the biggest single event in history, but slavery gets the longest track run award because that shit will probably never stop.

To be fair, the guy was a total dick.

It's hard to compare the Holocaust and Slavery. The holocaust was genocide.

I think if we are to talk about major travesty, we should also include in this discussion the communist revolution in China. In particular the "Great Leap Forward" under Mao Zedong. This cultural and economic upheaval led to the deaths of an estimated 70,000,000 people. One of the most memorable images of this time is families trading their children to be eaten by other families, to be spared eating their own children.

It's crazy when you imagine that kind of death. While you can probably imagine a field of 100 dead, nobody can comprehend 1 million, much less 70 million. At that point they go from individuals to a statistic.

(advocating a more severe view of the one I hold, for conversational purposes)

What good came of any ethnic cleansing, though? Even if slavery wasn't "worth it," didn't it do some (or even much) good?

If you want to go this direction, you can easily find benefits to the Holocaust, as well. Human experimentation by Nazi physicians and scientists produced some scientifically valid results, most notably work done in the study of hypothermia.

Which is worse? I am inclined to believe that the holocaust was much grander and terrible, though slavery is not to be taken lightly. For now, and since the holocaust is in the past and seems unlikely to be repeated, it seems that slavery should probably hold more concern for us in modern times.

That being said, each is born of ignorance and each is horrible in its own way.

Eerie. This reminds me a bit of what I've heard about Stalinist Russia. Cannibalism of family members due to starvation, poor living conditions and tragic compensation for farmers and peasants, etc. It is estimated that 20 million Russians died during Stalin's rule.

I believe that you are misappraising Arainach's statement. While it seems easy to place blame on the Church, thats because it is. Perhaps Arainach is alluding to the idea that organized religion has promoted behavior which discourages idealogical and religious competition. For instance, think of how many people 'died' (and I think you'd be troubled to call it anything other than murder) during the crusades as Christianity marched from one part of the world to the other, converting/killing everything in its path...not to mention encouraging outdated modes of thought which bypassed logic and caused people to act irrationally towards not only the world, but the people in it. Think of all of the heretics who were burned alive, skinned, quartered for trying to dispute the church's claim that the earth is the center of the universe...

...Not to mention the vatican's role (or lack of concern) in regards to the Holocaust. There was no visible opposition from the Catholic Church in saying 'This is wrong'. Meanwhile, millions of jews were being killed. The point is that the church had the power to do something positive, and decided not to. I think the reasoning into this is quite clear. This may not be 'direct' killing, but this is merely semantics. The church IS responsible for a great number of deaths.

I agree that the Church seems to have had rather bloody hands throughout its history, all for the name of expansion.

Though there is little way of supporting a claim that religion (more importantly, the followers of the religion) has killed more people than anything else, I am inclined to see a bit of truth in such statements regardless. If any religious zealots would like to get technical, what about the flood? (lol) God killed almost the entire human population on earth, not to mention entire cities (such as Sodom and Gomorroh), so I consider the ideal of death and religion going hand in hand, to be rather appropriate.

"benefits"? No. The research that you refer to cannot be deemed ethically permissable to use in modern medicine. There is nothing beneficial about it. It COULD'VE been beneficial but that would humanize the killing of 7 million people. The ends doesn't justify the means. Any counter argument implies that murder is acceptable.

I was quoting a guy who was saying slavery was beneficial to the economy. Did you even read my post? Or his, for that matter?

And it was eleven million people. By most rough estimates.