Governments Using Atheism by Force

[Grim]

NO...no matter how often you assert the above sentence it won't make it true. Don't presume to convince me through threat of physical assault and with your arbitrarily antiquated comfort convictions. Besides I think you are on the wrong thread.

http://godisamyth.com/ - this site is not for stupid people
http://godisamyth.com/patriotism.htm - be unwilling to allow the lies of religious zealots to jeopardize the freedom of your nation

[Penelope]

Blimey, Grim.....I wouldn't really, physically assault you. Well, let's be honest, I'm not physically capable. T'wer just a bit of gratuitous violence.

Of course, you are right my convictions are rather antiquated. But they are not entirely false. Neither are they entirely comfortable.

I might have lost the thread.....but I am not on the wrong thread because I quoted you from further up the screen.

Pax - please?

[richards1000]

Penelope:

I assume you mean between Christianity and Science (or am I missing something here?)

Yes, you're quite right. Thanks. I've corrected the posting.

[Grim]

For the sake of all I would like to restate my original line of questioning. Lest confusion and religious fervor prevail.

"Atheism may be a more logical and realistic view of the world; however, it apparently can also be used as a way of control by a ruling class. Would it be better to have a society where religion has been forcibly removed, even through the most benevolently moral rational, than to live in one were religion is still significant? "

The overwhelmingly obvious response was no, later I posed modified questions the focus of which often encompass such slippery topics as.

"What indicators are there in any society when any particular religious belief begins distorting the beneficial aims of the state, and when these conditions are evident how should the state respond in its own failing to ethically control the role of religion?"

Later on to such abstractions as: "But couldn't anyone adopt this as a moral and ethical vision without belief in mystical Christianity?'

Then: "How, without the use of force, can you rationally contain the irrational when it has every right to be wrong?"

Suddenly into: "Do you have any arguments in support of your contention respecting separation of church and state that have prevailed in the courts and are consistent with the text of the Constitution?"

Further reinforced into: "I think that the enforcement of such requirements in certain states and localities is not a sufficient justification for banning all religious groups or prohibiting the practice of all forms of religion in the U.S. "

Then: "Of course, we don't believe that Atheism should be forced."

Back into: "I disagree with the view that all religious groups should be banned and the practice of all forms of religion prohibited, because such a view would violate basic norms of human rights, including the right to religious freedom guaranteed by Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

Defended by: "My perspective was from the alternative viewpoint that when the "voluntary religious beliefs" begin to threaten government when they become too influential and that it is the government's protectionist responsibility to enact some measure of control."

Into: "My point was that many rich and persuasive works arguing for the compatibility of Christianity and science have already been written."

To: "Is this honestly what politics needs, a morally vague an inconsistent argument for bias that is meant to instill wonder?

Since you obviously favor the argument for the freedom of religion how do you imagine that all religious freedoms could be retained if the church's influence were to be forced away from politics? ."

Only to realize that: "The separation of church and state actually means that the government has no control over religion??? "

Into: "His 'good' reasons for believing are when there is enough scientific evidence to support said belief.

His 'bad' reasons for believing are when the belief is just handed down from the last generation."

This is but a quick clipping, if I missed anything important please explain where belongs and what was written.

[Penelope]

Grim: Thank you for summing up.

Only to realize that: "The separation of church and state actually means that the government has no control over religion???

"


I know that in America, it is written into your constitution(?) that people should have freedom of religion. In the UK we have an established Church of England.....by which the Queen is crowned and is also the head of that Church. The Archbishop of Canterbury, comments on various events and occurences (not that anyone pays much attention). However, this is how history has enfolded for our island. The Queen at her Coronation has promised to 'defend the faith'.....Christian, that is. Prince Charles, her heir to the throne, has said that when he is crowned, he wants to promise to defend the faiths (plural). Causing a few ripples among the clergy. But it is true that we are a multi-cultural nation and when he is King, he will be required to vow, to defend the faith or faiths.

I don't know what this really means any more. Defend the faith against what? In the past, it would have been other faiths perhaps. When the vow was first written, I assume the monarch meant, he would defend the Christian faith, protestantism against the Christian faith Roman Catholiciism. Henry the eighth having made himself head of our church, rather than the Pope.

Anyway, that is my bit of potted history. And I do think that Parliament/Government would be better, separated from the Church. Because historically it has become an extremely tangled web.

I don't think there is any way people could be forced to become atheist - because atheism is just a way of looking at life. In a lot of ways, one can't help how one looks at life. Just as you cannot force people to believe something, you cannot force them 'not' to believe.

You can't turn belief on and off like a tap.

But if the Government had no allegiance to any faith or denomination, then, it would be rather more sensible. If people wanted to attend a certain church/mosque/sinagogue/ temple to perform rituals, they would be free to do so. As they are now......so long as it doesn't involve human sacrifices or disturb the neighbours or 'frighten the horses'. (joke)

I know that Robert would be able to put this far more succinctly although I don't think he would actually agree with me.

So, forgive my clumsy wording.......I've done my best.

Pen

[Robert Tulip]

Force is not the way to address belief. Education and example work much better. Compulsion is only used when the more sustainable methods of winning hearts and minds are not possible.

Force creates resentment as freedom of conscience is central to human identity. Even when there is outward conformity there will be secret resistance. Like Hercules v Hydra, every effort to suppress growth will be met by even faster growth. Persecution creates a sense of moral righteousness which can have a rational seed and irrational flowers.

The advocates of atheism are a sorry and superficial lot in any case. Neither Stalin nor Dawkins show a good understanding of Christianity. Rather they are masters of the straw man argument, focussing on obvious errors and rejecting dialogue about why the literal meaning points towards a metaphorical reality.

[Mr. P]

The advocates of atheism are a sorry and superficial lot in any case. Neither Stalin nor Dawkins show a good understanding of Christianity. Rather they are masters of the straw man argument, focussing on obvious errors and rejecting dialogue about why the literal meaning points towards a metaphorical reality.

And conflating Stalin with Athiests is not an attempt at creating an easy target?

Yeah. Real Christian of you. Jackass.

You do understand that Stalin and the dogma of communism wanted to do away with religion not to promote what atheism, and especially what Dawkins et al, really aim for, don't you? You do realize that it was more to transfer the helpless dependance that religion instills in humans of that need to bow down to some autority. With religion gone, the authority and dogma was the state...just another form of "religious" servituded to control the masses.

[Robert Tulip]

Ouch. Okay, so there are good atheists and bad atheists. I think Richard Dawkins is pretty good, but mainly when it comes to explaining science and attacking fundamentalism, not when it comes to explaining atheism.

Stalin was number one in world history at enforcing atheism. You can't just ignore this baggage by saying he wasn't a real atheist. Sure, your Machiavellian explanation is largely true, as Stalin flipped to make use of the church during the war when it suited him. However, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutio ... et_tactics states

The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools. Some actions against Orthodox priests and believers along with execution included torture, being sent to prison camps, labour camps or mental hospitals. Many Orthodox (along with peoples of other faiths) were also subjected to psychological punishment or torture and mind control experimentation in order to force them give up their religious convictions. It is estimated some 20 million Christians (18 million Orthodox, 2 million Roman Catholic) died or were interned in gulags under the Soviet regime. Practicing Orthodox Christians were restricted from prominent careers and membership in communist organizations (the party, the Komsomol). Anti-religious propaganda was openly sponsored and encouraged by the government, which the Church was not given an opportunity to publicly respond to. The government youth organization, the Komsomol, encouraged its members to vandalize Orthodox Churches and harass worshipers. Seminaries were closed down, and the church was restricted from using the press.

[DWill]

Persistence is a good quality. If you got carried away in lumping Stalin and Dawkins together, you didn't deserve to be called a name for it. I think the only role I have in this argument is to assert that I don't think there can be anything uniquely bad about atheism as an aim of totalitarian states. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have also have been been enforced by states, with destructive results. If the Soviet Union was more "successful" in its aim, in terms of numbers of people with the wrong ideas killed, etc., that does not indicate something more virulent about the existential stance called atheism. It might indicate instead that modernity enabled the S.U. to more efficiently pursue its program, or it can be explained by unique social and historical circumstances.

[Mr. P]

Ouch. Okay, so there are good atheists and bad atheists. I think Richard Dawkins is pretty good, but mainly when it comes to explaining science and attacking fundamentalism, not when it comes to explaining atheism.

The wikipedia article you posted is taken for what it is. But you HAVE to take MOTIVES into account with anything though. I have heard many Christians try to explain away 'abberations' of the faith with regard to the atrocities commited in it's name. Do you agree with this or not? The Crusades, Witch trials...etc...or can you "ignore this baggage?"

Stalin was number one in world history at enforcing atheism. You can't just ignore this baggage by saying he wasn't a real atheist. Sure, your Machiavellian explanation is largely true, as Stalin flipped to make use of the church during the war when it suited him.

See, I can ignore Stalin as any kind of 'true' atheist, in the context of people who CAN be good without god or religion. Your own paragraph explains why...he 'used the church when it suited his purpose". The form of atheism I respect and subscribe to would not do this. We have a very deep set trust of life without god. We are not playing angles to achieve anything but being left to live as we please without being discriminated against or having to deal with the simpletons who just cannot grasp how we can live without THEIR god.

If you see the poll results...no one here voted to enforce atheism. Stalin did enforce the abandonment of religion...to exert his own control...