God’s Lunatics Giveaway

Wow, that’s a tough one! I’d say I’m caught between Muhammad and Paul, not for anything they personally did (although Muhammad would definitely be a contender on that front as well), but because of the snowballs they got rolling.

If I absolutely have to pick one, I would go for Paul, just because of 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 (“As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”).

Not only has this one little paragraph been used as an excuse to oppress women for two thousand years, I also can’t help but wonder how many atrocities might have been avoided if half the congregation were able to speak out and say “hey wait a minute, I think that might be a bad idea!” Imagine how much more temperate the Vatican might have been had women been welcomed in as active participants!

Okay, it’s not quite a person, but my vote is for the Council of Nicaea, which gave us the modern-day interpretation of Jesus Christ, as well as the assembled-by-committee Bible.

Wow, only one? That is like asking what is the worst illness. Do you pick the most common, or hardest to cure, or most painful. My answer would have to be Eve. Though not real, her character has been at least partially responsible for the subjugation of women for millenniums. That is pretty harmful in my opinion.

My vote is for Tomas de Torquemada, leader of the Spanish Inquisition.

I think a strong case can be made for a man who isn’t even thought of primarily as a religious figure, but rather a politician: George W. Bush.
He was arguably the worst president in American history who, despite being utterly unqualified for the job, ran for the presidency because he was convinced god wanted him to. This is a matter of public record.
He proceeded to wreck the economy, first with completely selfish tax cuts exclusively for the extremely wealthy (his friends and family) and then by lying the country into a major war against a country (Iraq) the did not attack or threaten us.
He permitted his vice president to hold a private meeting with oil company executives for the purpose of allowing them to write our energy policies, including safety procedures for offshore drilling. We are now paying for that meeting with a disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
America’s standing in the eyes of the world plummeted.
Bush is a science-hater who doubts evolution and blocked stem-cell research. He could not have been worse for his country or the world. And all because god told him to run for president.

Saul of Tarsus. Hands down.

He made monotheism into something that could spread beyond the tribe it started in without conquest. That makes Christianity much more dangerous than Islam because Islam can be checked militarily. Only social wellbeing and education can check the spread of a peaceful religion and we all know how popular and common those ideas are.

Mohammed and Constantine are runners up.

Jerry Falwell
…for founding the Moral Majority which lead to the Religious Right. That Religious Right has been so destructive to America, which started as one of the greatest, free civilization ever founded. What our founding fathers created in making our United States Constitution was so great, such an example for the whole world and I think the Religious Right inserting themselves into politics has weakened that freedom and the example it had provided to the whole world.

(Bot sure if he qualifies as “historical”, but he is dead.)

I have no idea. Guess you better give me one of the books so I can educate myself.

The most obvious choice, I would have thought, would be Jesus, for being the foundation of the religions that spawned so many wars, witch hunts, the inquisition, and continues today to spread hate, violence and intolerance in the name of “the God of Love”.

I’m not sure we can qualify Jesus as a “historical figure” as we have no proof of any individual Jesus… so perhaps this entry is automatically disqualified, and I’ll have to think of another, of which, I’m sure, there are plenty.

Martin Luther.

First, He rejected the idea that good works can help people achieve salvation. If you’re gonna hang Heaven and Hell over people’s heads, you could at least scare them into helping some orphans while you’re at it.

Second, he encouraged the laity to read the Bible and translated it into the vernacular. Now any half-literate jackass can interpret scripture in a way that confirms his/her prejudices.

John, the writer of the Book of Revelation. His work has been used as a source for harm for centuries. For example, when children are told stories about hell just to scare them into belief, it is child abuse. When one man “purifies” another man, because he fears for that man’s soul, it can be either murder or sick torture depending upon what the actual “purification” was. In general, when unjustified fear is used to get people to do things, it is harmful, and what better fear for the church to use than the fear of eternal damnation. Also, what better source for this fear than the one from your holy text?

Clearly, the correct answer is God. Even holding aside his general responsibility for everything (troublesome or otherwise), there’s plenty of damning evidence against him: countless wars have been fought in his name. He has a long history of spreading propaganda against women, gays, atheists, and countless other groups. He’s commanded genocides, murders, and torture. He seems to delight in providing contradictory information and promises to different people, obfuscating religion and often attempting to attack scientific fact. To top it all off, he’s responsible for creating all of the other persons suggested thus far and countless more not mentioned.

Unfortunately, he’s not answerable to any court (not that we’d want him in one). No law restricts him, no office directs him, and no people elects him. If there were ever an abuse of power, clearly it was God’s.

Saul of motherfuckin’ Tarsus (aka “saint” Paul), no contest!

Mohammed

I’m going to qualify my answer because I do believe that religion has done a lot of good things, so a vote for Jesus or Paul, or even Mohamed, simply for founding a religion, would not be the same as causing harm in the name of religion.

My first thought is Urban II. He made it part of Christian ideals that one could achieve salvation by killing those who didn’t agree with you (first the Muslims, but later even “heretical” branches of Christianity like the Cathars in France).
Not only is that a harm with no commensurate benefit, but it has directly lead to the deep divide we now feel between the Muslim countries and the rest of the world.

I’ll give a second vote if I can to someone’s mentioning of Martin Luther. His 1543 book, “On the Jews and Their Lies” tied together German nationalism and antisemitism and lead causally to WWII and the Holocaust. He was the true inventor of the “final solution” by stating “[w]e are at fault in not slaying [the Jews]” (and other similar sentiments).

Jehovah! There, I said it! * ducking from rocks *

King James.
That’s just a completely uneducated guess. Didn’t see his name, so threw it out there. Thanks to all who’ve posted with actual reasons. I’ve learned something new today.

Although I am not an American, I am out of the contest. But academically I vote for Muhammed. He killed scores of innocent people in his lifetime and the Muslims have been killing people since seventh century till today. Christian violence has stopped long ago.

Unfortunately, I can only give the same answer a few others gave: Hitler. Hitler absolutely used religion both to get elected and as a justification for the Holocaust. That’s my only answer.

I’ll have to second Justin’s nod to Martin Luther. On top of anti-semitic writings (which I’m sure had [sarcasm]nothing[/sarcasm] to do with the Holocaust, even if Hitler was Catholic), he was an avowed enemy of reason. It’s hard to say whether Protestants or Catholics have had, on the whole, a worse effect on the world today; it seems that Catholicism is full of gross neglect (child rape, opposition to condom use in Africa, etc.), but much of the most active harm and hatred seems to be coming from Protestant evangelicals, for which Luther is ultimately responsible.

Side note: I realize that I did it too, but I’d like to observe that it took us only 3 posts to Godwin.

Pontius Pilate- If this man had decided against crucifixion of Jesus we would have allowed a burgeoning lunacy to take it’s natural course, a slow death as people lose interest. With death there came a martyr, something to rally around, something more interesting than “one of those guys that claims to be the son of some god”.
Without all the attention this fools proclamations would have achieved the slow death of indifference that they should have. Unfortunately with this crucifixion we get all the nut-job frothing fervor that the world has seen take hold of millions, and kill millions more…AND one of the most disgusting symbols of ‘love’ I can possibly imagine.
Thank god he wasn’t beheaded and eviscerated, that would have made for a slightly more distasteful piece of jewelry.

I’d like to put in a “good” word for St. Jerome, who is best known for his translation of the Vulgate.

As a misogynist, he’s up there with Paul. He believed in the superiority of celibacy to marriage, and encouraged such an extreme form of asceticism for women that one of the young women who followed it actually died–whereupon he criticized her mother for mourning too much. He had quite a following among women, and had to leave Rome after an investigation into whether he had an affair with his patroness–who also happened to be the mother of the dead girl. In a sense, he helped invent the sexual hypocrisy that televangelists have developed into a fine art.

He also wrote that anyone who “misinterpreted” scripture or departed from orthodoxy in any way was in league with the Antichrist–a belief that, given his status as a church father, could only contribute to the burning of heretics.

In general, he just seems to have been a thoroughly twisted individual with a very strong sense of his own righteousness. He spent a lot of time wandering around the catacombs in Rome to remind himself of Hell and psych himself up. He quit reading classical literature because it was evil. He attacked the secular clergy (that is, the clergy who actively ministered to people) and insisted on the superiority of hermits–the more extreme, the better. Eventually this kind of fanaticism would get so out of hand that St. Benedict would find it necessary to write the Benedictine Rule, partly to protect monks from the physical damage that resulted from extreme asceticism.

Or could it be…

O->–<

I would like to cast a vote for the original author(s) of the book of exodus. The line, ” you shall not suffer a witch to live” has lead to the cruel murder of innocent women and children, which still continues.

Well, I got here way too late. I nominate Paul of Tarsus for the honor with Constantine as a close second. Both deserve the recognition because of their dissemination of Christianity without which the world would be a much better place.

This one will probably be pretty unpopular, but as Saul and Martin Luther were already taken 😉 I’m going to nominate… Mother Theresa.

Her entire lifetime was spent pushing the idea that poverty and pain were ideals, and that forced birth and the death of the ill were god’s will. At the same time there was unimaginable hypocrisy as she traveled the world speaking to the leaders of nations, withholding charitable donations from the actual people in care at the Calcutta facilities. In all of this, her name has become synonymous with “charity” and “empathy”. Being anti-birth control and anti-abortion is held up as saintly in great part because of her influence, and people are dying from it.

The Emperor Constantine, who created the Catholic Church which lead to all Christianity and mixed politics with a state sponsored religion. By getting overly involved in the politics of religion, Constantine ‘proved’ to the faithful that it was the ‘one true religion’ which encouraged them to take more and more power proving that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Since this is limited to the US I’m going to limit my answer to the US. I vote for the conservative religious wing of the American population. Every time something socially stupid comes along you can pretty well trace it back to them. Everything from killing all the native people in the name of Manifest Destiny to justifying slavery to our wonderful “missions to convert the natives” to McCarthyism to the current “war against terror” (and more) have been put forth in the name of god by the religious (read primarily Christian) portion of the American population.

Of course, the Crusades, etc…, have also taken place, but it always amazes me how much damage American religious conservatives have wreaked in just a little over 200 years.

Abraham, if he is to be considered a historical figure. He codified the notion of human sacrifice being noble with respect to all three Abrahamic religions.

Even today the problem of piety trumping value of human lives is one of the core issues that faiths help keep alive.

Alas, there is massive doubt that he is a historical figure, but I’m happy to disqualify.

Jonathan Cruse says it best:

“While religious figures like Muhammed, Torquemada, and various Popes have been at the helm of the darkest hours of history, they would’ve been nothing more than impotent lunatics if it hadn’t been for the individual who, without thought or reason, accepted the lunacy espoused by these figures.

If the common wo/man would take the time to rationally evaluate the claims of the nuts, I believe that the majority of religious disasters could’ve been averted. After all, a leader requires followers for success.”

Thomas Kinkade.

I know, I know, some people will say Torquemada, some will say Pope Innocent IV.

But could either of those men paint? Not that history recalls. If they could, then perhaps their crimes could reach the horror of a Kinkade.

Until such time that we come upon a painting of a charming country lane by lamplight, rendered in the waning moments of the gloaming by Innocent IV, or a delightful cottage with glowing windows which speak of a cozy hearth somewhere within, as brought to dreamlike life by the Grand Inquisitor, we are left agape at the horrors of Kinkade.

May we never find worse.

I’d say Martin Luther. His anti-semitism (such as his book “Of the Jews and their lies” exemplifies) set the stage for Jewish persecution by Christians, and had a direct role in setting the stage for the atrocities of Adolph Hitler.

I vote for (St.)Augustine who gave us
sexual repression and all that goes with it.
Both the Catholics and the Protestants love his writings and show it.

Me myself, I really resent those good people who are believers. Well, you know, with bad guys it’s quite easy – they are bad, they are religious… everything goes fine. And then you meet these really decent folks who are believers too. And the case is made of them as an example of a Christian, or some other denomination. It is all their fault, I think, that religion still muddle people’s minds.

We have quite a few nominations for Constantine (including mine), and I think they all make a good case for his contributions. But it was Siamang’s nomination for Thomas Kincaid had me laughing my arse off.

I think if we want to talk sexual repression, Augustine didn’t do the initial damage, it really was Paul in an attempt to paint Roman culture as immoral while at the same time painting them as largely not cuplable for the crucifixions, rather huge mental gymnastics there, but it both is the source of christian anti-semitism and sexual intolerance and hostility.

Martin Luther was a raging anti-semite, but his fodder too came from Paul.

So in terms of total damage, I think Paul must bear more blame than Martin Luther.

Oh! I know I already posted once but I wanted to add to the Joseph Smith entry. Joseph Smith created Mormonism and Mormonism created Stephanie Meyer. We ALL know the hell on earth Twilight has created.

Joseph Smith

She might not count as a historical figure, but Tammy Faye Bakker’s crimes against makeup are unforgivable.

I’m going to look outside the Western and Middle Eastern contexts and vote for Confucius, on the grounds that he helped create a totalitarian ideology that unifies the conduct of the individual, the society, the state, and the divine into a great moral clockwork that justified for thousands of years (and still justifies for many) the maintenance of an eternal despotic police state to govern a vast population.

I think I have to go with the First Vatican Council, if a group can count as a figure. In 1870, they established the infallability of the Pope, as well as declaring outright that anyone who does not hold the same ideals as the Catholic Church is damned for all eternity. The holders of the office of the Pope have caused so much suffering and misery because of their archaic world views, especially to the poorer peoples of the world, and this group in particular bears a large part of the burden for increasing the empowerment of the office entering the 20th century.

Wow, great history lesson I had reading these entries. 🙂

Not eligible because I don’t live in the US, but I think my vote would have to go to Pope John Paul II. Though there have been far more henious figures in the history of religion, I’m hard-pressed to think of a single individual who did harm to a greater number of people. The Catholic prohibition on condoms partly caused the African explosion of AIDS that continues to ravage the continent. Yes Ratzi has continued the awful policy, but John Paul bears the chief responsibility for the exponential rise of the disease in what is already the poorest and least healthy continent on Earth. Next to that Torquemada is a third-rater.

The very first person to ever believe in God.
We’ll call him Joe. Joe has been the source of more mayhem and destruction than anyone would ever think one man would be capable of.

Wow, the cats thing was news to me too. I still stand by my original answer, but that’s an obvious second. Also: Siaming, you crack me up. I hate Thomas Kinkade with the heat of 10,000 suns.

John Calvin, for the abominable doctrine of Calvinism. It is abbreviated in the ‘TULIP’ acronym standing for Total Depravity (you’re a terrible evil bad person because you’re human), Unconditional Election (who you are as a person doesn’t matter because you serve an arbitrary god who just picks people to be saved on a whim, isn’t he grand?) Limited Atonement (yeah, you’re safe but there’s no hope for your heathen friends and family) Irresistible grace (blah blah the elect can not resist god’s love or something, this one actually seems pretty benign) and Perseverance of the saints (can’t lose your salvation- leads to the ‘you were never a Christian’ defense against apostates that is very hurtful to many). I have seen this doctrine ruin the potentials of several close friends, otherwise intelligent people with interest in math and science and helping their fellow man who just wanted to follow what they believed to be true with their whole heart and instead found guilt and servitude and an inability to pursue their talents because they’re too busy praising a tyrant for being tyrannical.

Otherwise, James Kennedy, founder of Evangelism Explosion. You know when Baptists come to your house at night and make you listen to an hour long presentation trying to convert you, they don’t venture into any kind of dialogue with you, they just talk for hours and leave you with those bothersome tracts that aren’t even interestingly illustrated? That’s his fault.

I would say John Travolta.

Two words…Battlefield Earth!

“Christian violence has stopped long ago.” – Pranati Banerjee

I wish! Abortion clinic bombings, the murder of Dr. George Tiller, the arrests of Hutaree militia members, and proposed legislation in Uganda mandating the death penalty for gays are all evidence to the contrary.

This would have to be Emperor Constantine because of his paving the road for others to truly incorporate religion into the government. He paved the way not only for Christianity but others as well. He also made sure that honest skeptics could not hold be elected to office in the year 2010. Why he chose to torture us in 2010 is beyond me, but I’m sure that’s what he had in mind.

I’d have to say Martin Luther.

He helped make Christianity more accessible to a large majority of the populance, without which Catholicism could have possibly lessened its’ hold simply because of how strict it is. He basically offered the masses a get-out-of-hell free card- way more attractive than paying for sins.

He also was a fierce anti-Semitic. Need I add more?

While I was tempted to name a figure from the Inquisition because they refined and advanced terrorism as a religious tool, or L Ron because he did it on purpose and as a joke, I have chosen, instead, to blame Moses for being too weak or too lazy to also carry down the third tablet. That was the one from which we would have received the Carlin commandments.

I would like to add one more:
Thou shalt not live in obscene luxury while the taxpayers or your religious adherents pour money into your otherwise failed endeavor and then claim the outrageous recompense is necessary to retain top talent.

Oh, and I think we’ve left off Ayatollah Khomeini. Implemented Sharia Law in Iran and murdered thousands of people who disagreed with him (up to 30,000 in the 1988 massacre alone). He was responsible for the Iran Hostage crisis and issued the fatwa against Rushdie, which led to attempts on the lives of three translators of the book, one of whom died. He’s forced all of the women in Iran into religious subjugation and separation, which was much less extreme before his time.

He basically founded radical Islam. Who knows how much of the current state of extreme muslim terrorists can be traced back to Khomeini? Osama Bin Laden owes a great deal to the radicalization of Islam that Khomeini ushered in. Last summer we saw the green movement, there are people still being murdered and executed because they don’t toe the line Khomeini drew 30 years ago.

“Let the American president know that he is the most repulsive member of the human race today, because of the injustice he has imposed on the Muslim nation. Today the Koran has become his enemy.” – Khomeini

http://www.wright-house.com/religions/islam/islam-perversion.html

Well, I’m having a hard time deciding between the following:

Jars of Clay
Lifehouse
Sixpence None the Richer
These people assaulted the ear drums of America throughout the 90s and legitimized so called christian “rock”. Music is better when left to the devil.

In an attempt to be different, I’ll vote for whoever wrote Hebrews 11:1, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” or whoever thought up that idea in the first place.

The first part of the sentence may have been interpreted in a good way (encouraging people to have hope) but it is the last half that really ruins it.

Because of this idea, people who want their religion in government think that religious belief is, in and of itself, evidence that can be used in an argument.

President George W. Bush

His administration has been compared to the infamous European Dark Ages when discussing the harm to science and education caused by his initiatives and directives in the first decade of the 21st century.

At the same time he helped enact legislation which significantly erodes many fundamental freedoms of our society, he destroyed the economy with egregious financial deregulation, and he retarded global diplomatic relations to the level of school yard bullying.

All while engaging in a self professed “Crusade” against his sect of Christianity’s historical enemies in the Middle East.

Stephen Baldwin. I don’t believe that any explanation is necessary.

Um correction Jack Chick has sold over 750 MILLION comics,(not 750) in fact I heard he recently hit the billion mark, Keep up the “good” work Jack… My hero.

The Evil Lord Xenu

It was Nero, because he didn’t kill all the christians back than, saving the world! :))

A lot of good choices are already taken, so I will go with George McCready Price, author of the 1923 college “textbook” The New Geology. This book laid the foundation for the “Creation Science” movement that inspired Henry Morris and later Kent Hovind and Ken Ham. The book’s arguments were no more valid in 1923 than they are today, but they sounded just academic enough to provide cover for “educators” and parents who prefer to deny science. Modern homeschool and Christian school books still seem to be based primarily on his work.

Honorable mention goes to Aimee Semple McPhereson, who proved that not even faking one’s own kidnapping is enough to turn away True Believers. Her scandal seems to have paved the way for countless imitations, not the least of which was Oral Roberts, who claimed to need $8,000,000 to avoid being called “home.” Yes, God held his life for ransom. If McPhereson could pull off an imaginary abduction, why not try a potential one, by God no less?

Joseph, without question.

A liar with a soft heart who protected an impure woman. Had he not stuck with Mary and backed up her “God did it” claims, then this false idol Jesus would have been not a man of note, nor more than the illegitimate son of a carpenter.

The atrocities committed in the name of God / Jesus and his glorious salvation would never have been. No crusades, no Lutherans (though at least they don’t worship the clergy like the cat-licks), no holocaust et. al.

Gutenberg? I assume that was a joke. Gutenberg has actually enabled the departure from the dark ages. The protestant movement was bloody, but not because of interest, but because of necessity to free from catholic oppression.

I think it’s fair to say that we wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for Gutenberg, the enabling of archiving and distributing scientific theories, the able of the masses to read form themselves the things that until they were told by clerical authority (often in foreign language!)

For all that’s wrong with Martin Luther, he also had positive aspects in pushing for a public’s faith which ultimately is still the core of the Jefferson/Madison view of separation of church and state.

Printing cartoons does not incite violence either. I think we should start denouncing as strongly as possible this whole “incite violence” narrative. As if the people who actually act violently have no choice in their actions.

K’, I haven’t read all 100+ comments yet…but I put in Pope Gregory 9th, cause he made the Inquisition formal, causing Spain to pick up on the idea, too.

Besides executions, the Inquisition fostered just plain hate, suspicion, prejudice and misery all over.

And the new Pope was head of the current version, and I think they still have a bad influence.

There are some very VERY good answers here, and some fantastic arguments supporting them. I think, however, they miss the mark. You see every one of the nominees that I have seen so far can lay their very existence in history at the feet of one person. This person has done the most to cause misery and destruction across the millenia. They are solely responsible for every travesty of justice, every wrong committed in the name of *insert deity here* and each crime against humanity perpetrated in his/her/it’s name. Without this person, each of these equally bizarre religions would never have existed but in the mind of a single addled human mind.

This person?

The believer.

Hitch said…
“Printing cartoons does not incite violence either. I think we should start denouncing as strongly as possible this whole “incite violence” narrative. As if the people who actually act violently have no choice in their actions.”
Really you think cartoons are not capable of inciting violence? Nazi propaganda, (often in cartoon form) did not incite violence, KKK cartoons of “coons” hung up by the neck did not incite violence? The fact that a person may be incited to violence does nothing to absolve the person who committed the violence act itself but it does indicate that there was some one else egging them on. People who already have a predilection can be incited to act where they may otherwise “just sit this one out” you seem to think incitement does not exist and never happens. Why do you suppose we even have such a word as incite or laws that forbid inciting to violence. Do you suppose that people such as Charles Manson or Robert Shelton or Jim Jones or Rick Warren should be let off the hook because they didn’t actually commit violent acts, but merely spoke out or published materials that incited others to kill? Will you refuse to acknowledge crowd psychology and insist that you alone among all humanity are immune to it’s effects? Do you claim that no crowd has been incited to riot or no worker has ever been incited to strike or is it just that cartoons are so impotent that they can never be sufficient to the task?

I think we should all start denouncing as strongly as possible all “Buzz Kill” postings. As if the posters who just want to shit on others, (particularly in light hearted fun posts) have no choice in their actions.

Give me a break man you attempted to incite people on this site to denounce the entire “incite violence” narrative.

My nomination stands
Jack T. Chick is in the business of inciting via cartoons, that is what he does and he does it well, a billion strong and growing.

I nominate “ANONYMOUS.” For the first time in human history, someone, somewhere, a long time ago, found comfort or provided comfort to others by making up a myth or a story. Conversely, said person could have used the story or myth to frighten people into docility or action.

From Wikianswers: “Archaeologists have discovered what seems to be remains of the world’s earliest religious worship site in the remote Ngamiland region of Botswana. Here, our ancestors performed advanced rituals, worshiping the python some 70,000 years ago.”

I find it curious that a snake was involved…where have I heard that before.

I think “onehandclapping” has a great point- the believer is the root of all problems. You can’t have people kiling for imaginary gods when no one believes in them.

@Hitch
Hirsi Ali, Hitchens, Westergaard, Vilks, Taslima Nasrin?!? I thought you were talking about Jack Chick! Chick is a cartoonist of some renown who makes his living inciting Christians against non Christians, not to violence but to contempt and proselytizing. However cartoons are often used to incite to violence. I was siting Charles Manson, Robert Shelton (KKK), Nazis, Jim Jones and Rick Warren as examples of people or organizations who do incite to violence and in the case of the KKK and Nazis as examples of the use of cartoons to incite. I was not comparing them to your above named group but instead as examples of the validity of the concept of incitement and also the use of cartoons to incite. Cartoons can and do incite to violence and a cartoon of Mohammad can has and will for the foreseeable future incite violence. There is a difference as far as intent goes as in one case the cartoons are designed to incite violent action against a group, (KKK and Nazi cartoons) and in an other they are designed to incite contempt for a group (Jyllands-Posten, Jack Chick cartoons) and at still other times as a protest against those incited by cartoons meant to defame them. Lets face it ideas matter and cartoons can and do convey ideas in a very powerful way. When a cartoon pisses you off and you take violent action against the cartoonist it’s kind of a stretch to say the cartoonist incited violence against himself, however when a cartoon is designed to inspire violent action against a third party the cartoonist bears a certain responsibility if and when that action is carried out. Cartoons can and do incite people to buy certain cereals, or to kill subhuman scum, or to harass people with difference beliefs they theirs. Jack is effective and I find it hard to believe that a billion comics designed to incite have not affected the readership.

Hitch alright I’ll leave it alone on this thread after this as well. Sure Chick has a right to do what he does, it still incites discontent by use of cartoons. The imams who toured with the “fake” cartoons used them to incite and that was the purpose the cartoons where created for. It appears to me that the original “real” cartoon was meant incite others against Muslims, not to violence but rather the first step down that road namely to reinforce the notion of Muslims as dangerous “others”, James Dobson does this with sermons and radio shows rather than cartoons with the “others” in his case being homosexuals and they are all perfectly free to do so. But in the end Dobsons actions have incited others to shun and/or shame/harass family members who are gay, sometimes, (sadly often) these familiar discords have been a significant factor in the suicides of gay teens. Bill O’Riley raves unabated for months about the monstrous Dr. Tillman and Tillman winds up murdered and yet Bill O is off the hook because… Why exactly? Even though we now know that his influence played an inciting role he never said bluntly that some one should go shoot him. Fine so he and everyone else has a right to incite to violence provided they are cleaver enough to dance around a topic while still making their intent clear.
All I’m really saying is that the concept of a person or organization being able to incite others to violence or any number of other behaviors is a valid and demonstrable concept. Sure I give many examples of incitement but I also acknowledge the differences in these examples. To the extent that there has been apples and oranges it has been the fact that for the first half of our discussion you were talking about apples and I was talking about oranges. When I refuted the statement “I think we should start denouncing as strongly as possible this whole “incite violence” narrative.” I had no idea you were talking about the Danish Muhammad cartoons narrative, I thought you were denouncing the concept that people can and do incite violence in others. Sorry it seems I lost the plot on that one I thought you meant cartoons can not incite violence, that specifically Jack could not incite anything with his dumb cartoon tracts. I think that Jacks tract such as “Allah had no son” and “is Allah like you” do push people down that road of hatred of Muslims just as the danish cartoons do. Come on now admit that a cartoon of Mohammad with a bomb in his turban is an inflammatory image and not meant to paint Muslims in a kind light, or don’t, it seems we disagree on that point.
I’m not even saying it is wrong to incite, simply that it is possible and happens a lot and I won’t denounce the concept and I don’t think others should denounce it either.
Jack is up to some nasty business, even you acknowledge that. I thought your bit about cartoons was a response to my nomination of Jack just a few posts upstream. Like I said it seems somewhere along the thread I lost the plot.

“to prove people were still brave enough to stand up to threats, without being insulting.”
Nothing insulting about Muhammad with a bomb, clearly it was meant to paint Muslims in a good light, my mistake.

*facepalm*
Just because I disagree does not mean I don’t know what I’m talking about, screw you and your 5 minutes of research snipe.

I would personally say Abraham. If not for him, the three most destructive religions of the world would not even exist. Maybe something else would have replaced them but before them it seems that that people didn’t destroy each other based on their patron mythological invisible daddy.

Okay, this is another attempt at an entry I tried to submit about 36 hours ago that seems to have been eaten. 😉

———

I nominate Moses, the fictional representation of the conflation of hundreds of years of anonymous authors of the Torah/Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible.

The Torah/Pentateuch provides the foundational justifications for Judaism, Christianity (and its ridiculous amount of branches, from Catholicism to Pentecostalism to Mormonism), and Islam. They all tacked on massive amounts of additional garbage, but most particularly without the backing of the Genesis creation story(ies), the Adam & Eve original sin story, and the Ten Commandments, I think they would have collapsed long ago.

Genesis includes the creation stories that inspire or demand a blatant disregard for science, persisting even among millions of modern-day dangerous fools. It includes the Adam & Eve stories that provide the foundational justifications for misogyny. Women are deemed inferior to men both because Eve was created after/from Adam, and because Eve was fooled into getting humanity cursed. Christianity’s mythos revolves around the ‘original sin’ established in the Adam & Eve story, without which the whole Jesus sacrifice storyline would be irrelevant. Genesis also establishes the pattern of God having no qualms arbitrarily slaughtering massive amounts of people and his followers celebrating it for millennia to come, with Noah’s Ark. And it puts Abraham’s blind unquestioning faith on a pedestal, applauding his willingness to murder his son at the decree of a voice in his head.

Exodus establishes the myth of Moses, the supposed author of all these atrocities. It includes the formation of an actual holy day celebrating abritrary slaughter for the sake of religion, Passover. And it establishes the Ten Commandments, which have been used as one of the major infiltrations of religion into government, by liars and fools who claim that all laws and moral principles spring from the Ten Commandments, so surely they deserve to be enshrined in our courthouses. Exodus also enshrines many additional laws, most notably the infamous “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live,” which continues to inspire murders even today.

Leviticus includes more of the massive amounts of dictated ‘laws’ that Christians have long loved to pick and choose from to justify a myriad of bigotries, whether putting ‘undesirables’ to death in earlier times, or just mistreating ‘undesirables’ while wishing they could put them (us) to death in modern times. It provides foundational justifications for hatred of gays, blasphemers, insufficiently-subservient children, insufficiently-subservient women, and more.

Numbers includes more demonstrations of God’s murderous whims and absurd threats, praises the killing of interracial couples, instructs that sick people be abandonded, and other beautiful examples of inspirational literature.

Deuteronomy includes one of the most explicit commands from God to commit genocide against people with different beliefs. It also lays out the Deuteronomic Code, more of the same harsh tripe as Exodus and Leviticus, including killing insufficiently-subservient children, killing women who can’t prove virginity when wed, killing witches, approving slavery, and so forth.

I would have to go with Larry Norman. Yes, that’s right, as in:
“Why does the devil get all the good music?”
The founder of the whole Christian “rock” genre, who endured oppression from fellow Christians in order to open the door for such musical atrocities as Jars of Clay, the Newsboys, plus any band claiming that they play Christian punk, goth, deathmetal, etc,but with the loving message of Jesus Christ, oh yeah and then their was that whole ska incident from the late 90’s, eek!
I only make fun because I participated….

So, who won?

Booooooo:( full disclosure! I’m curious as to which choices and arguments won.

Well done. Fun thread this with lots of good history.

Satan, no contest.

Everyone else who has done any harm is just practice.

It has to be Abraham, who fathered the line from which Judiasm,Christianity and Islam arose. Three of the most violent religions in the world.

It does not appear that anyone selected the most heinous “historical figure” that I think is the most obvious — Yahweh/God. That such a fanciful creature that doesn’t even exist should create such hatred and bigotry around the world to this day is my choice.