Yeah right. The victims' religiosity was an outlying result in Pol Pot's efforts. Not denying he persecuted those who were religious, but it wasn't the main reason.
The mistake you continue to make is splitting hairs on which regime is atheist, which is merely secular, which is non-christian and thus fair game to be called atheist.
You might want to read up on Pol Pot before you post a litany of garbage.
Pol Pot was actually Theravada Buddhist and the Khmer Rouge were composed of Buddhists.
Pol Pot’s Education:
1934 – 1935 Buddhist monastery Wat Botum Vaddei in Phnom Penh
1935 – 1943 Catholic school in Phnom Penh École Miche
1943 – 1947 Collège Preah Sihanouk at Kampong Cham
1947 – 1948 Lycée Sisowath in Phnom Penh
1948 – 1949 Technical school in Phnom Penh
1949 – 1952 École Francaise de radio-électricité
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... For support rather than illumination. "
It's not entirely clear how you conclude that any historical movement which uses theism as one of its justifications for barbarity serves to demonstrrate that theism is invalid, whereas any movement that uses atheism as a justification for its barbarity merely indicates an "outlying result." If atheism was not intrinsic to the barbarities of communism in recent history, then theism is likewise not intrinsic to the barbarities of past centuries. You cannot have it both ways, Charles.
To refer to Bolshevists, Maoists and the Khmer Rouge as "merely secular" is like referring to the Nazis as "merely discriminatory."
You know you've entered another dimension when somebody tries to argue that Pol Pot was a Buddhist. And, of course, we know this because when he was 9 years old he briefly lived in a Buddhist monastery. Seriously.
Charles, if you want to debate history with somebody you have to be familiar with history. History is not a mixed drink where you can mix in a little bit of this and a little bit of that until you get the desired results. You have to actually know this stuff and can't substitute Google searches and cherry picking random pointless facts for intellectual insight.
And no, at the risk of stating the obvious, Pol Pot was not a Buddhist.
By the way, can I assume that your neglecting to rdefend your previous comments about "religious wars" indicates you admit your sources are in error? Luca