Luxmoore, for his part, holds little hesitation in acquainting us with Dawkins' brilliance as a biologist and, alongside, his equally hideous ability in what Luxmoore describes as "moral speculation." According to him, Dawkins' views of morality are in fact despotic in tone, well beyond merely being uncivilized. He explains:
"Language like this would sound familiar to those who remember the campaign against religious faith in Eastern Europe, where claims about religion's social divisiveness were used by totalitarian regimes to justify savage repression...The utilitarian morality favored by Dawkins was given free reign."
Atheist invaders, indeed. As I read his article, an atheist myself mind you, I could hardly determine if I should gleefully cheer for the advances of atheism in popular and political culture, or cringe in fear at the bloodcurdling monster which has been unleashed in the form of the famous and Orwellian sounding Dawkins that Luxmoore describes.
The feeling was but a momentary one, and once I shook off the notion that Luxmoore might actually be onto something, I instead realized that he was a horribly paranoid and exceptionally bright fellow, not to mention notably religious in some fashion; a dangerous concoction if there ever were one. While he manages to be infectious through his writing, his summary of the atheist invasion remains unconvincing and difficult to digest as terrifying.
Let's be clear here; Dawkins and his ideas, his atheism, much of it is a threat to the religious status quo. Of course it is intimidating, even threatening. Yet, the real source of Luxmoore's fear and anxiety rest with the fact that the Dawkins and the atheist arguments he makes may be both more convincing and sensible than his own. It must be troubling to realize this, especially if you are suspicious about atheist invaders to begin.
Hence, we find Luxmoore characterizing Dawkins in a way that some might describe Iran's President Ahmadinejad, should he somehow be running rampant in the streets of Oxford as a famous biologist in the place of Dawkins. And we find a lurid, even terrifying atmosphere, seeping through Luxmoore's descriptions and synopsis; Dawkins' atheist campaign holds a "chilling eugenic undertone"; Dawkins' influential friends and formidable resources; the atheist crusaders who have risen and "set to fight" as Dawkins sounds the horn against religious fanaticism. Luxmoore paints quite a vivid picture, but a picture designed in the broad strokes of insecurity and tinted with an overriding sense of false, even mildly apocalyptic, religious persecution.
Despite all this, I have to say that his article was still a thought provoking one. It caused me to pause and reflect that we, as atheists, have a duty to ourselves and our fellow man--of any religious persuasion--to ensure that we do not somehow overstep the boundaries of equality, of rational morality, and of liberty as qualities endeared by the vast majority of reasonable human beings that we know. For that much, at least, I sincerely thank Luxmoore for his article.
16 comments:
I actually agree with Jonathan Luxmoore - paranoid though he may sound. Most blearly-eyed atheists themselves seem unaware of the dimensions and implications of Dawkins' latest campaign - particularly given today's brittle social/cultural/psychological climate. I think it is demagogic, sinister and dangerous, and that parallels with Stalinism are quite valid
I have to wonder, do you feel that Christians who make a rally-call to purge atheism from the ranks of society, do you feel that they are not demagogic, sinister, and dangerous?
I suppose what seems curious to me is that it is a "Stalinist" styled threat to Christians, when coming from atheists, yet is hardly ever considered or commented on by Christians who view one of their own insinuating the same thing about atheism. In reflection, it seems a natural enough reaction by anyone, if not perhaps unnecessarily exaggerated, when having a core belief and even way of life threatened.
Still, it is a two-way street and for my part, I don't tend to view (most) Christians as inquisitors, for example, because they talk about their desire to do away with atheism. Well, I'm not worried quite yet--but I'll be sure to let everyone know if that changes. :D
Can you give us some examples of Christians who've made "a rally-call to purge atheism from the ranks of society" - and who've petitioned ministers and urged changes in the laws to restrict the rights of atheists (as have Dawkins and co in respect of Christaisn)?
And while we're at it, perhaps you can give a few examples of Christian states - let's stick to living memory - who've slaughtered atheists in their hundreds of thousands for being atheists.
Are you kidding? The "rally-call" against godlessness and atheism has been an ever present happenstance, ranging from ministers, priests, televangelists, and on up to even Presidents since the establishment of the American republic (and long, long before). Let us not forget the many and well-funded pressures exerted by the Christian right in modern America upon American politics. Examples? Here are a quick smattering from recent history:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." -- George Bush Sr. to reporter Robert Sherman
"If we are going to save America and evangelize the world, we cannot accommodate secular philosophies that are diametrically opposed to Christian truth...We need to pull out all the stops to recruit and train 25 million Americans to become informed pro-moral activists whose voices can be heard in the halls of Congress." -- Jerry Falwell
"I want you to let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good. Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty. We are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism." -- Randall Terry, Operation Rescue
As to your question about Christians being killed by an atheists state--a veiled reference to Communist Russia and China--the fact of the matter is that Christians were not singled out, and it is false to pretend so. Communists killed everyone and anyone who they deemed or suspected as a threat to the state. What is more, let's not forget that it was not an atheist state but a Communist state, and the killings were done in it's name, not for any philosophical or political reason derived from atheism directly. Religion was seen as a threat, among other things, such as the intelligentsia from which some atheists were also selected for death.
It was not merely as you would like to insinuate--atheists killing Christians in the name of atheism but instead Communists killing in the name of the Communist state and Marxism. Political dogma holds far greater blame, alongside it's common partners--faithful and blind allegiance.
Beyond all that, the atheism of Communist Russia is not even remotely like the atheism proposed by modern atheists such as Richard Dawkins. The atheism of the varied Communist states was a strict political anti-theism, if you want to really be precise, for which rational atheism has always been a radical depature.
And, as a final word, I noticed that you didn't answer my question to you. Rather, you raise a fairly contrived attack on atheism and atheists in general which frankly is unsurprising, dishonest, and unfortunately typical. You couldn't even admit that venom exists from both sides, and we'd do well--you and I and beyond by the whole of us as a society--to take a step back and breath deeply, hoping that we can re-approach one another more rationally and calmly than has been so routine throughout history.
Thanks - I think I did answer your question, although it may not be the answer you wanted. I'm here in Europe (and specifically Britain), which is where the real concerns are. So I'll just make two responses to what you say.
1. Rhetoric is rhetoric. There is plenty of it on every side; and I don't think anyone would mind it this were just a vigorous, hard-hitting critique of religion and Christianity. I'm interested not in what people say (and, of course, I'd need to see what they really said), but in what people do. And there's no question that concrete action is being taken by atheist campaigners to change laws and restrict peoples' rights. Luxmoore cited some recent examples from Britain, such as the campaign to close faith schools and the denial of adotion rights to Christian families. I don't see any such action being taken against atheists on the part of Christians - and certainly not on the part of mainstream churches or religious associations.
2. Your claim - "let's not forget that it was not an atheist state but a Communist state, and the killings were done in it's name, not for any philosophical or political reason derived from atheism directly" - is, of course communist propaganda. I'm amazed that Dawkins and co are engaging in such primitive historical revisionism, which would be laughed by anyone who lived under communist rule.
In just two decades of communist rule in Russia alone, 45,000 Orthodox churches lay in ruins, and 250,000 Orthodox priests, monks and nuns lay dead, with tens of thousands more in prison or exile. Only two Orthodox bishops and two metropolitans were still at large, while a total of 6376 Russian Orthodox priests were still registered in 1939, compared to a pre-Revolution total of 112,629. In the single year 1937, according to a Russian commission report this January, 87,000 Russian Orthodox clergy were executed.
That's not to mention the tens of thousands of Muslims, Buddhists, Jews and Christians of other denominations who were slaughted in the interests of science and atheism - as is expressly confirmed by numerous Soviet orders and decrees. These are just a few of the many facts which might be cited. There is, then, clear historical, factual, empirical evidence of what militant atheists do when they gain power. And, of course, all of this happened within living memory, right here in civilised Europe. Can you be surprised that Christians are alarmed to hear such such similar statements being made against religion today as were made under Stalinism? I would urge you to educate yourself before you make claims such as those above.
James said, "Thanks - I think I did answer your question, although it may not be the answer you wanted."
No, not really. Your answer was "give examples of Christians who made rally-calls to purge atheism from society" and "give examples of Christian states who slaughtered atheists for being atheists". Not much of an answer at all, frankly, particularly since it ignores the fact that atheists don't adhere to belief in any deity, not merely the Christian one.
So far as that is concerned, the Islamic world is in essentially the same state of existence that Christianity was during the dark ages. They rebuff rationality, inspection and analysis of the religion as a whole, and base their legal and political systems on an interpretation of their religious documents and dogma.
Christianity, for it's part, has been subdued by the Age of Enlightenment and a recognition by Western society that secular governments are far more preferable than those who intermingle religion and state, or for that matter, are theocratic as a whole. Christian states no longer exist in any notable fashion as an effect of this recognition (in the Western world).
As to your #1 section in your latest reply, "And there's no question that concrete action is being taken by atheist campaigners to change laws and restrict people's rights."
So far as I can tell or am aware--being an American who is not as closely attuned to the events happening in Britain--most of the events Luxmoore describes are due to a desire to maintain and fully establish a separation between church and state. The real issue is whether these activities should continue to be funded by the government, and not so much whether they are disallowed entirely.
As a result, schools which intend to indoctrinate children with religious dogma are finding that they are being refused funding that has been common until now. This is also true for adoption agencies who refuse to place children with gay couples; Christian charities and agencies who act on such a principle are in no way prevented from continuing to do so, however, they can no longer and should no longer expect funding assistance from the government while they do. Such a stance is not unreasonable.
I should note that the "denial of adoption rights" to Christian families does not entail a refusal for them to be capable of adopting children. Not as far as I am aware, in any case. Rather, Christian organizations and parents who are trying to place children for adoption are no longer permitted to refuse qualified gay adoptive parents the right to adopt those children being placed.
Finally, regarding section #2 of your reply, you are either being dishonest and not providing the whole story, or you are unaware and need to educate yourself on the matter. For that matter, am I to presume that you are calling me a Communist? To dispel any notion of such a thing, I'd remark that I firmly abhor Communism and embrace the ideals of a Democratic-Republic (and its common counterpart, Capitalism) as the best political structure we, as a human whole, have been capable of identifying. In all, I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative--best described in reality as a Libertarian--who is no more interested in espousing or distributing so-called "communist propaganda" than I am interested in doing the same for "religious propaganda."
For example, you cite statistics detailing those from the Russian Orthodox Church who were killed during the Great Purge. You fail to recognize that those people were but a fraction of the whole, and were in no way chosen on the basis of atheism vs. religion (or Christianity) but because those individuals were specifically cited as either "anti-revolutionaries" or "enemies of the state."
Millions more beyond those merely from within the Orthodox Church and other religious communities were executed or sent into exile (i.e., gulag or other prison communities) and none of them faced that for reasons explicitly due to atheism. They were seen as threats to the power base of the state, and by Stalin regarding his own personal position.
You fail to mention that, starting a short time after the Great Purge ended (approximately 40' or 41'), the Orthodox Church actually became a state supported entity--yes, by the very same party led by Stalin who persecuted that same organization just years before. In fact, it was even upheld as a "patriotic and state supportive" organization. Does this sound like the initiative of atheists who first killed in the name of atheism only to reverse their decision and next support the Orthodox Church as somehow supportive of the so-called atheist state? Of course not. It was done, once again, in the interest of the Communist State and not by decree or motivation born partially or purely due to atheism.
In all, Stalin's purge was done no more in the name of atheism than the fact that he had a mustache. Communism, and even Marxism-Leninism, does not explicitly or implicitly deny religious belief, or enforce atheism.
For example, Lenin from his work On Religion, states, "The state must not concern itself with religion; religious societies must not be bound to the state. Everyone must be free to profess whatever religion he likes, or to profess no religion, i.e., to be an atheist, as every Socialist usually is."
Lenin though that any attempt to enforce atheism on the people was a contradictory to the goal of uniting the people/worker class despite any differences they may have, including differences of religion. He felt it was divisive and counter-productive, along with being unnecessary.
Marxism also suggested that an attempt to enforce atheism on the people was to invite anarchy and would cause unnecessary divisions in the same strain of thought that Lenin provides. Lenin explained that "Marxists are absolutely opposed to the slightest affront to these workers' religious conviction."
So far as Stalin is concerned, he was educated in ethics at the Seminary of Tiflis and had no particular negative point of view regarding religion, Christianity, or the Orthodoxy outside of the threat the organizations presented against the state he worked to build. That is, he was not utterly opposed to religious beliefs as much as he saw the existing religious organizations as a threat to the rise of his Communist State. He desired to destroy that existing infrastructure in order to eliminate that threat--which he by and large did--reversing the position and using the Church as an entity to help build a sense of nationalism.
If we continue with your type of thinking, we might also suggest that Stalin was anti-military. Why? Tens of thousands of military officers, from lowest to the highest, were also executed and forced into exile at the same time that Orthodox priests and nuns were targeted. Why? He believed that they too represented a threat. The purge left his military and social structure in ruin, a situation that revealed itself as dire when the Germans initiated war with Stalin's Russia.
In all, it is seriously dishonest or at best grossly uninformed to pretend that the Great Purge and killing of all those people--or even Christians in particular--was due to decrees for and by atheism and not Stalin's program for the Communist State. We should not also ignore the paranoia he expressed, or the ruthlessness he used as the basis for eliminating untold numbers of people on both the Left and Right. Many people who were atheists were also slain, just as there were many people who were religious.
In all, it is disingenuous to associate Stalin's activities as a program of atheism seeking to stamp out theism and religion. You might find a fellow theist's opinion on the subject both informative and of interest--We killed less people than they did:
http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=432
What you are saying about communism is really serious revisionism - appalling in its naivety and callousness. But let me deal with your contention about the atheist campaign in Britain first, since that is at least more discussable.
1. "Christianity, for it's part, has been subdued by the Age of Enlightenment and a recognition by Western society that secular governments are far more preferable than those who intermingle religion and state.... schools which intend to indoctrinate children with religious dogma are finding that they are being refused funding that has been common until now".
All the countries of the Council of Europe endorse the separation of Church and State. The system varies in minor points here and there; and the best system, in France, is one in which religious freedom is fully protected and Church and State also co-operate practically, where appropriate and possible, for the good of society.
Any knowledgeable historian will tell you that the Enlightenment was itself a product of Europe's Christian tradition. So were democracy, human rights, the separation of powers, Church-State separation - as well as anti-clericalism, rationalism, materialism etc etc. The simplest evidence for this (it's a big subject) is that these things all emerged precisely here in Europe, and not anywhere else.
The democratic state has a duty to support a wide and representative range of social/civil and cultural inititiaves, since it has resources to deploy. This naturally includes social/civil and cultural initiatives run by churches (such as schools, hospitals, orphanages etc); and since the Catholic Church is, in effect, the world's largest NGO - by a very, very, very long way - this includes certain Catholic institutions. If the state suddenly cuts off all support, this would be an act of grave discrimination. In the case of faith schools, there is a campaign underway not just withdraw state funding, but actually to close them, which would be a violation of all existing human rights treaties and agreements, not to mention basic state law.
No one who sends their children to Christian schools (I can't say how it is with Muslim schools) will recognise your description ("indoctrinate children with religious dogma). My own go to a Catholic school. Around a third of pupils are actually Catholics, and far fewer than that go on to receive Catholic "formation" (such as First Communion). The school celebrates Eads, Divali and other non-Christian festivals, and there's no dogmatic pressure whatsoever on children. And this counts for Catholic schools everywhere, at least here in Britain.
2. "You fail to recognize that those people were but a fraction of the whole, and were in no way chosen on the basis of atheism vs. religion (or Christianity) but because those individuals were specifically cited as either 'anti-revolutionaries' or 'enemies of the state'.
I don't wish to offend you, but this IS communist propaganda, and it's very interesting to see that the atheist lobby is trying to square the circle - having to defend the communist record in order to whitewash the record of atheist regimes. I'd advise you not to repeat things like you've said in Russia or Eastern Europe if you want to be taken seriously!
What you've come up with is, in effect, a new type of Holocaust denial. (Of course, Hitler had nothing against Jews - he had to deal with them because they were a danger to Germany. And he didn't single them out, since he only slaughtered six million, whereas most of the 50 million people whose deaths he caused weren't Jews). You're right that Stalin was an ex-Orthodox seminarian (just as Pol Pot was an ex-Buddhist monk) and probably had a more complex view of religion than Lenin. But since you accept the word of Lenin and Stalin at face value, I'm sending just a few quotes in return, so we can see whether it's true that either "had no particular negative point of view regarding religion, Christianity, or the Orthodoxy outside of the threat the organizations presented against the state..."
Lenin in 1909: "To call religion the opium of the people is too kind. It is, in fact, a kind of spiritual vodka, by which the slaves of capital blacken their human figure and their aspirations for a more dignified human life".
Lenin to Gorky: "Every religious idea, every idea of God, even flirting with the idea of God, is unutterable vileness. Millions of sins, filthy deeds, acts of violence and physical contagions.... are far less dangerous than the subtle, spiritual idea of God decked out in the smartest ideological costumes".
Lenin to the Politburo, 1922: "It is precisely now and only now, when in the starving regions people are eating human flesh, and hundreds, if not thousands, of corpses are littering the roads, that we can (and therefore must) pursue the confiscation of Church valuables with the most savage and merciless energy, without hesitating to crush any resistance.... The greater number of representatives of the reactionary clergy and bourgeoisie we succeed in executing for this reason, the better. We must teach the people such a lesson right now that they will not dare even to think of any resistance".
Bukharin, 1919: "The separation of Church and state, and of school and Church, has been relatively easy, almost an effortless task for the proletarian power. It is incomparably more difficult to fight against religious prejudices which have already taken deep root in the conscience of the masses. The struggle will be long. Patience must be accompanied by measures of extreme firmness"
Stalin, 1929: "By proclaiming liberty of worship, we have nevertheless maintained for each citizen the right to fight by way of persuasion, propaganda or agitation against this or that religion, or against all religion. The Party cannot be neutral in relation to religion; it conducts a campaign against all religious prejudices, since it is in favour of science".
James said, "What you are saying about communism is really serious revisionism -- appalling in its naivety and callousness."
I might level the same charge toward your representation of the situation. This in light of your apparent inability to recognize the realities that have been presented (or otherwise available) or simply to misrepresent the situation in order to weakly make your argument.
For example, you quote Lenin in his letter to the Politburo. Yes, indeed! He most certainly did make an urgent plea that a move to confiscate Church property should be made. You suggest that this was out of a motivation on the part of atheism and some desire to be rid of religion and the religious, and not instead based on Communist and political motivation, yet you provide the quote out of context (and provide your own clearly misrepresented context in its place).
Just what reasoning did Lenin outline, after all, that such a move should be initiated? He, in fact, gives his reasoning and begins his letter by relaying, "...it becomes perfectly clear that the Black Hundreds clergy, headed by its leader, with full deliberation is carrying out a plan at this very moment to destroy us decisively."
Shortly after he urges his plan to seize church property and that, "Now and only now, the vast majority of peasants will either be on our side, or at least will not be in a position to support to any decisive degree this handful of Black Hundreds clergy and reactionary urban petty bourgeoisie, who are willing and able to attempt to oppose this Soviet decree with a policy of force."
He continues, citing his specific reasoning for wanting to be rid of the opposition and, more importantly, his real goal in relation to the church property, "We must pursue the removal of church property by any means necessary in order to secure for ourselves a fund of several hundred million gold rubles (do not forget the immense wealth of some monasteries and lauras)."
Alright, here comes the kicker. Why kill the clergy and take their gold rubles? In the name of atheism? To purge the people and peasantry of the blot of religion? He tells us, "Without this fund any government work in general, any economic build-up in particular, and any upholding of soviet principles in Genoa especially is unthinkable."
And there you have it. The attack against the clergy was for two reasons, 1) Not only would they be challenged by their clergy led opponents, but 2) They would also be absent of the funds necessary to "uphold soviet principles"--an allusion not to atheism but to the Communist state they sought to establish.
Of course, presumably you are aware of this and have knowingly thrown out the quote hoping to cement a context that doesn't exist. And too, I would suppose you are aware of Comrade Molotov's response, reading, "Agreed. However, I propose to extend the campaign not to all gubernias and cities, but to those where indeed there are considerable possessions of value, accordingly concentrating the forces and attention of the party."
Frankly, the motivations involved are clearly political and not purely or even merely atheistic. To represent it as you have is simply dishonest. Even beyond, instances to the contrary of your argument exist through which Communists wavered between oppression and puppet like use of organized religion in order to advance the interest of the Communist state-—hardly an act motivated by atheism, or a goal of unified atheism, in its own right.
Perhaps the clearest way to relay all this is found in excerpts from the Journal of Religion (Vol 32., No. 3 (1952)) which, speaking of Communist China reads, "Christianity is facing a severe test in China. In its determination to maintain a totalitarian state, the Communist regime has subjected every phase of Christian endeavor to control, supervision, or intimidation...While there has been no direct attack upon the tenets of the Christian faith, the government has rendered it increasingly difficult for Christians to practice their beliefs and carry on as members of an organized church."
This excerpt highlights the crux of my argument. Yes, Marxist and Leninist Communists are atheists (or at the least, prone toward atheism as in the case of Stalin, whose views on religion we can't be precisely certain). More importantly, they are totalitarian, often brutally so. Both they, and the dogma they adhere to, are generally if not openly opposed to organized religion on the premise that it is a representative threat to the consolidation of power by the state. At the same time, the state would be more than willing to use and even support organized religion if those who run the state believe that they can use that organization to further control the people and maintain or expand their power.
To make this more obvious, totalitarian (and not per se Communist) regimes frequently rely on religion to support their agenda. A theocracy, in its own right, tends toward totalitarianism by its very nature. Communism, in terms of atheistic Communism, generally absolves the use of religion and instead prefers to utilize political (rather than religious) dogma to control the populace under its rule. But not always, as even organized religion can present itself as a useful tool even to a political regime that relies primarily on political dogma.
History confirms this and examples certainly exist, all of which you seem to ignore. One such example I’ve provided earlier--Stalin actually initiated a program that had thousands of churches rebuilt, starting in the early 1940's, and thereafter marketed the idea that the Orthodox Church was an organization supportive of the state. Why would an atheist, who you purport to have set out to destroy and lay waste to religion and those religious, simply turn around and rebuild not just hundreds but thousands of the churches? Because...of his atheism and his evil atheistic plans? Or because of his political ideology and the at least temporary usefulness of religion to further his goal for the state?
Granted, this direction would be later reversed by his successors, but it demonstrates that the goal was not to abolish or eliminate religion out of a driving atheism, but instead was a byproduct of the political competition for the minds of the people it rules over. This is only magnified by the totalitarian approach used by modern Communist regimes, over and over, during the last century and beyond. Chinese (and Korean) Communists supported and even provided some latitude to Christians and Christian organizations, for a time, due to the anti-Japanese sentiment and support they lent back to the state.
To briefly return to the Journal of Religion quoted above, "This treatment of the Christian churches is not an isolated phenomenon limited to China but is characteristic of Communist practice elsewhere. It is part of the process by which the Communists seize and hold power, systematically eliminating wherever they can the influence of systems of faith and belief which control the minds and actions of men and replacing them with the dogmas of communism."
It is about as clear of an answer as you can get. This is not about me or the “atheist lobby” professing some “new” type of holocaust denial. Instead, it is you trying to accomplish the reverse—-claiming that it was some sort of holocaust against Christians at the hand of atheists. As though it was for the cause and goal of atheism, and not totalitarian Communism. That simply is not the case, grossly distorting and ignoring the true motivations that cost millions of lives; totalitarian political dogma.
This discussion is becoming, frankly, ridiculous. You are clearly, unmistakeably, unequivocably an apologist for communism - and now not just for nice Mr Lenin and Mr Stalin, but for kind Mr Mao too, whose claims and arguments you've clearly swallowed hook, line and sinker
It's a highly revealing mindset, which fully justifies fears of what today's reborn militant atheism is capable of.
As someone who lived under communist rule myself, I would urge you to rethink some of what you have said. For example, everyone in Russia knows that Stalin made his overnight deal in the Kremlin with surviving Orthodox leaders (only 19 bishops out of 230 were still alive in camps at the time) because he had completely obliterated the Orthodox Church with extraordinary savagery and brutality, and could therefore harness what little remained of it to do his will and serve Soviet propaganda. To portray this as a sign of goodwill is simply monstrous. It will set alarm bells ringing.
Don't be absurd. I never once claimed it was a gesture of goodwill on the part of Stalin (or any other Communist). Clearly--several times--I have stated that he *used* the Orthodox Church to further his end for the Communist state. Not for a second have I excused or tried to diminish, in any way, the atrocities and cruelty brought about by Communism or it's varied leaders. Nothing that I have said even comes close to doing so, despite your warped perception to the contrary.
That you insinuate what you have appears either calculated or delusional, yet remains clearly offensive, unfounded, and irrational regardless the starting point.
I can only presume that you read your bible in the same manner you have read my half of our discussion--picking and choosing what you want to hear and distorting the remainder to fit within your preconceived and erroneous notions. I, for one, am not surprised. Disappointed, yes, but not surprised.
Thanks for your polite remarks, but I'm afraid your arguments leave me untouched. The Communist Party didn't think in liberal, bourgeois, middle-class US categories. They persecuted religious people because they were radically atheistic. And they were radically atheistic because they saw religion, with its alternative system of values and loyalties, as a barrier to the New Man and new society they sought to create, using all necessary means. No communist boss would have drawn the kind of dichotomy which you insist on pursuing between religion as a political threat and religion as an ideological challenge. They were one and the same - that's how the communist system worked. Religion isn't something you think about in the privacy of your kitchen: it's a public thing you do with others. So if you allow religion, you also have to allow religious freedom.
I fully understand that you HAVE to argue it differently, at all costs, because you are ideologically motivated and have to prove the case for atheism against religion. But this line of thinking simply doesn't work; and the more you pursue it, however much you claim to oppose totalitarianism, the more you will tie yourself in historical knots. This is revisionism pure and simple; and it really does alarm me.
Of course, regimes claiming a Christian sanction were responsible for many bad things (Crusades, Inquisition etc) in the past. I think they were distortions of the Christian Gospel. And I'm quite ready to concede that the crimes of atheist regimes were distortions of enlightened atheist thinking (like others, I know some atheists who seem more honest and decent than some Christians). But the crucial difference is the huge scale and the recentness of these atheist crimes. While no Christian today would talk about instituting new crusades and inquisitions, there are plenty of atheists who ARE talking about closing faith schools, banning the teaching of religion, restricting parental rights etc, often in strikingly similar language to communist propagandists ("fanaticism", "irrationality", "dangers to peace"). Dawkins is a prime example of this.
This is the great Achilles Heel of the current atheist movement. Quite simply, we've seen what atheist regimes who elevate "science" and "rationality" above all ethical and moral judgements do, and we'd rather not see it repeated, thankyou! Perhaps all those millions of poor Russians, Ukrainians, Balts, Poles, Czechs etc etc haven't ever understood communism properly, whereas the smart guys at their computers in New York and Chicago have. But I don't think you'll convince anyone with genuine first-hand experience.
Hello again James,
I don't have much time on my hands at the moment, and I appreciate your comments (at least from the point of view that you are engaging and revealing, if for no other reason). Having said that, I'd like to address a couple points you brought out in your most recent comment but I can't really turn my attention to a proper reply until later, perhaps not until late tomorrow.
I just wanted to pass that much along so you wouldn't think I was ignoring or otherwise unaware of your recent input in the discussion.
James said, "They persecuted religious people because they were radically atheistic."
Here you make a firm claim to the very thing you are trying to establish as true in the first place, yet you haven't raised a feasible argument demonstrating this as true, nor have you done away with points from my argument which indicate that the persecution of religious people is instead due to their political ideology.
You fail to recognize that they were Communists first and foremost, and atheists because of their Communism. Not the other way around. Further, you fail in any way to demonstrate that being "radically atheist" denotes that they were killing for the sake of atheism and not Communism. One does not necessarily follow the other. Both Stalin and Hitler had mustaches, but I doubt that either of us would argue that fact as indicative of anything.
You also, once again, take something that I have argued and contort it into something different--proceeding to then attack that contorted version in place of actually addressing what I’ve stated. This is called a "straw man" argument, James. In this instance, you claim that, "No communist boss would have drawn the kind of dichotomy which you insist on pursuing between religion as a political threat and religion as an ideological challenge. They were one and the same..."
Of course, I never argued such a thing and have never "drawn out a dichotomy" of the sort you suggest. I have instead said precisely what you have; that "Communist bosses" (a phrase and label I may have to permanently borrow from you!) viewed organized religion as an ideological and political threat. But the basis for this struggle was from a clear social context, not an atheist one. In their view, organized religion was a facet of society that oppressed the (goal of the) workers' state, just as had Capitalism. Both were enemies of the position of Communism on this basis—as opponents to the state, not per se to atheism.
For that matter, an atheist can be both religious (such as a Buddhist), or a Capitalist. Communism is no more inherent to an atheist than is Capitalism. Atheism is simply to be without theism, or theistic belief. It neither provides for nor demands hostility to religion. A newborn is wholly atheist and no more an anti-theist than they are a Communist.
This is not to say that either anti-theism or atheism are not and cannot be byproducts of Communism. Without a doubt, all these things can and have existed, but so to have Christians embraced a quasi-Communism at various points in history. (Recognition of this has even been made in explicit fashion by the pacifist Mennonite sect—specifically the Global Anabaptist Mennonites—as found in their “Christian Declaration on Communism and Anti-Communism” from 1962, from which they are careful to specify their opposition to “atheistic Communism” and not just Communism in general, a Christian strain of which is presented directly in the bible (Acts 4:32 – 5:11). Ironically, we might even consider Peter as having been the first person recorded as having killed for Communism.)
But the opposition to religion by Communists, of the strain found in Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and beyond, is due to the view of organized religion being an oppressive property of existing society and an opponent to the workers’ paradise. That is, opposition is by way of their goal for Communism and the Communist state, not for atheism or an atheist state.
To fall back to Lenin, it is quite clear that a difference of view exists between an individual holding a religious belief and that of organized religion being a political threat and ideological competitor was clearly drawn out. In fact, both Lenin and Engels (particularly the latter) argued against making a war on religion for two reasons; 1) that religion would eventually go away on its own once Communism had been thoroughly established and accepted in both the mind of the individual and the larger society as a whole, and 2) the best way to revive and sustain an interest in religion was to declare war on it, and that "to proclaim that war on religion was a political task of the workers' party was just anarchistic phrase-mongering" and any proposal to the contrary would only serve to "out-Bismark Bismark."
In all, they felt that organized religion must be struggled with and against because, as an organization and they as Communists, the Church would always "demand a leading and dominant position" and remain in an ongoing battle with the state, directly or otherwise. In fact, both Lenin and Engels (and quite likely Stalin), believed that "the worker's party should have the ability to work patiently at the task of organizing and educating the proletariat, which would lead to the dying out of religion, and not throw itself into the gamble of a political war on religion."
This is not to say that militant clericalism or organized religion could not be openly dealt with, even in an aggressive and hostile manner, but that any such attack was not to ever be on the basis of eliminating religion for or by the premise of atheism itself, a fruitless position to consider in the first place. Engels described any such approach as pure stupidity, a point for which Lenin was in strong agreement. To combat it as such was only to invite division, anarchy, and fervor that was counter-productive to the ambition of creating the workers’ paradise, that sought above any other consideration including atheism.
Lenin is exceptionally clear on this point. He states, "We must combat religion--that is the ABC of all materialism, and consequently of Marxism. But Marxism is not a materialism which has stopped at the ABC. Marxism goes further. It says: We must know how to combat religion, and in order to do so we must explain the source of faith and religion among the masses in a materialist way....And so, "Down with religion and long live atheism; the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!" The Marxist says that this is not true, that it is a superficial view, the view of narrow bourgeois uplifters."
His point is that atheism is characteristic of Marxism, an inevitable result of and partner to it, but it is not the cause being fought for. That any struggle against religion is not on the basis of atheism, nor should it ever be proclaimed as such because that is naive and a gross misunderstanding of Marxism itself. Instead, it is from the socio-political objectives explained by Marxism through which religion must also be approached and opposed. An understanding of the social context involved—that of organized religion as one among several oppressive forces--is the cause to be fought for and through.
Atheism is an effect, not the cause. It does not provide the impetus by which they act. Rather it is both a mark and result of their success. It is native to the cause but has never been the cause itself. Atheism is to be "subordinated to its basic task--the development of the class struggle of the exploited masses against the exploiters." As such, organized religion (and the clerics, priests, and other officials of the organization) remain both ideological and political opponents of Communism because they oppose it, not solely or even because they are religious in their own right. Simply put, atheism is neither the rally call nor the motivation being served.
To make this even clearer, he discusses at some length the consideration of whether a priest can be a Communist--if the party should or even could admit them into the party. His answer? (I paraphrase some of the following quote for the sake of brevity) "It cannot be asserted once and for all that priests cannot be members of the Social-Democratic Party; but neither can the reverse rule be laid down. If a priest comes to us to take part in our common political work and conscientiously performs Party duties, without opposing the programme of the Party, he may be allowed to join the ranks of the Social-Democrats; for the contradiction between the spirit and principles of our programme and the religious convictions of the priest would be...his own private contradiction. And if a priest joined the Social-Democratic Party and made it is his chief and almost sole work actively to propagate religious views in the Party, it would unquestionably have to expel him from its ranks. We must not only admit workers who preserve their belief in God into the Social-Democratic Party, but must deliberately set out to recruit them; we are absolutely opposed to giving the slightest offence to their religious convictions, but we recruit them in order to educate them in the spirit of our programme, and not in order to permit an active struggle against it."
It is not a war on the religious that motivated these Communist bosses. Neither is it a motivation born from atheism or even materialism. They sought a social revolution, not a religious revolution. They wanted to alter the very fabric of society itself. Their desire to achieve the social constructs they idealized was their motivation—atheism and materialism, in their opinion, would only follow in the minds of those who they had won over.
I think it is clear that you either refuse to acknowledge this--clearly you want to believe it is as simple as atheists killing the religious for the "cause" of atheism--or you don't comprehend the ideological principles that generated the dogma, or motivated those who embraced it. Of course, it is just as likely that you prefer your portrayal because it serves your interest and satisfies your personal world view, however dishonest or erroneous it may be.
Your basic contention - they were communists first, and atheists second - is obvious. But your argument unravels when you try to construct a whole ideological system out of it which exonerates atheism. Was Hitler a Nazi or an anti-semite? Did he kill Europe's because he hated Judaism, or because he saw the Jews as a barrier to the kind to German super-race he sought to create. This is a chicken-and-egg argument, since the result was the same either way. I don't think any of communism's countless religious victims would care to debate the question at any length. Nor would any communist, for that matter.
Marx argued that religion ("sigh of the oppressed creature, the soul of a world without soul, the mind of a world without mind... the opium of the people") was part of the superstructure of capitalism which alienated Man and denied him the fruits of his labour. Rooting out religious beliefs was thus the logical extension of Marx's dialectical materialism. They were two sides of the same coin; and I thought everyone knew this.
There are even Church leaders, such as Cardinal Wyszynski of Poland, who said they would have supported the communist programme if not for its narrow atheism. I can only say that I hope you'll one day read and consider some of the many, many testimonies of people like this - and of others who faced appalling persecution at the hands of communist atheists and atheist communists - with the same assiduousness and credence with which you presume to interpret Lenin, Engels and Stalin. The fact that Lenin says something does not make it true or accurate; and I think you should try to recognise this, however determined you are to defend him. There are, of course, any number of quotes (such as the ones I cited earlier) which can be counterposed to the ones you make here - I'm not even going to go down that path.
You appear to object to the term "communist bosses" - so let's use "communist visionaries" instead.
To test your observation that your communist visionaries were against organised religion "by way of their goal for Communism and the Communist state, not for atheism or an atheist state" (I'm keeping your use of capitals), let's consider an event from December 1929, when young communists marked Christmas by parading through Moscow aboard tanks in mock liturgical costumes, spitting on upturned crosses. This event, apparently copied from Revolutionary France, was witnessed by foreign diplomats and provoked protests from Western church leaders (most religious leaders in the Soviet Union had either been killed or locked up by then, so they weren't in much of a position to protest). Does this event bear out Lenin's remark? Does it suggest atheism is not a "rally call or the motivation being served"?
And let's also consider the work of the League of Militant Atheists, headed by Yemelian Yaroslavsky, which claimed 5.7 million members by the mid-1930s and commanded huge sums of money, running radio broadcasts and editions of Bezboznik in numerous languages and maintaining links with communist parties abroad. It had offices in government ministries and military commands, as well as in factories and schools, while its local clubs, often housed in converted churches, monitored and denounced religious practices at village and farm level. League activists visited people in their homes, urging them to sign anti-religious petitions and replace icons with portraits of Marx and Lenin as a gesture of loyalty to the state.
Religious books were withdrawn from libraries, and films circulated with titles like "Destroy the gods" and "Opium", the latter featuring Archbishop Cieplak and other Church leaders. In 1929, the League at Kharkhov pressured the local post and telephone offices to bar priests from receiving mail and making calls. Meanwhile, universities were required by the People's Commissariat of Education to have chairs in "Scientific Atheism". Schools and colleges had to provide atheism classes, and teachers keep watch on pupils and their families for signs of religiousness. Pupils were encouraged to inform on colleagues and were rewarded when they did. "Atheist" toys were given to children and pantomines performed with caricatures of Christ, the Virgin Mary and saints. Pledges were exchanged to cure the "religious illusions" of parents, and attempts made to popularise the greeting, Boga niet - i nie budiet ("God is not - and will not be"). Perhaps you didn't hear about any of this.
Suffice it to say, you have placed yourself, wittingly or not, on the side of your communist visionaries, and the very Marxisant language you use amplifies this. The reason is clear - you have to. It is the logical, inescapable conclusion of your "principled atheist" position - you must seek to interpret and justify the communist position, even to the extent of quoting the New Testament and enlisting St Peter as the first martyr to communism. Interestingly, even the Big Dick himself (Dawkins) is locked into the same logic now. When he spoke in the UK recently, he insisted Hitler and Stalin had been "quite mild in comparison with what we know of the religious monsters of the Middle Ages". I don't know whether there were Jews and East Europeans in his audience at the time.
It's a truly perverse strategy. I had Communist Party leaders among my closest relatives; and judging from my conversations with them, your revisionist naivety is breath-taking. It's also, curiously enough, self-defeating. After all, if the real basis for communist atheism had been, as you put, "a clear social context", what is the basis for your own militant atheism today? Is there some entrenched anti-clerical/republican tradition which you are identifying with (such as one might look to in France, Italy or Spain)? Are churches still a feature of capitalist exploitation? Are they still barriers to certain political goals? Are they preventing the realisation of an ideological programme?
I would be quite content to say that religious regimes (or regimes claiming a religious sanction) have done terrible things; and that atheist regimes have done the same - much more recently, and far more devastingly. In short, since both are eternally tainted, let's just leave each other in peace, staying vigilant against extremism, upholding the democratic state of law, and making sure we get neither ever again. But the current attempt to exonerate atheists of all blame and assert the atheist position at the cost of the religious is alarming. It reminds me of those poor communists who'll be plaintiffly and pathetically insisting for the next thousand years that communism was OK, it's just that we never really applied it properly. No thanks! We've tasted that chicken already...
Wow...did I just learn something. I scribbled up a nice fat reply for you, James, but it disappeared into the nether regions of the Internet, apparently.
Needless to say, I'm too tired and frustrated to make another attempt at the moment (2AM here).
One thing I did want to remark on, quickly; you quoted me from an earlier comment noting that I had "Communist" and "Communist state" capitalized while "atheism" and "atheist state" were not. The reason is, Communist with a capital...actually, this will be easier:
http://www.answers.com/Communism
Note that entry #2 refers to the capitalized usage of the word.
P.S. I don't in any way object to your coining of "Communist bosses". I think it is great! Honestly, there was no sarcasm.
Likely you think I was offended in some fashion due to your impression that I'm actually a Communist (despite my statements to the contrary) and like to spread Communist propaganda. Okay, whatever if so or not.
The fact is, I really would like to permanently borrow the label "Communist bosses" for future use. It seems a very accurate and telling label to apply to the vast majority of Communists leaders--it fits far better than Communist "visionary". I mean, at the very least, I could never imagine calling Stalin a "Communist visionary" while keeping a straight face.
Post a Comment