Secular and or Atheist violence
- Thread starter briareos
- Start date
Notedstrangeperson
Well-Known Member
Belk said:
"So far as the party of the socialist proletariat is concerned, religion is not a private affair. Our Party is an association of class-conscious, advanced fighters for the emancipation of the working class. Such an association cannot and must not be indifferent to lack of class-consciousness, ignorance or obscurantism in the shape of religious beliefs. We demand complete disestablishment of the Church so as to be able to combat the religious fog with purely ideological and solely ideological weapons, by means of our press and by word of mouth. But we founded our association, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, precisely for such a struggle against every religious bamboozling of the workers. And to us the ideological struggle is not a private affair, but the affair of the whole Party, of the whole proletariat."
- Socialism and Religion
Lenin, 1905
Lenin, 1905
There's another interesting note in this link. Originally, Christians were allowed to join the Socialist party as he thought there was no way to change their minds. He continues:
"If that is so, why do we not declare in our Programme that we are atheists? Why do we not forbid Christians and other believers in God to join our Party?
The answer to this question will serve to explain the very important difference in the way the question of religion is presented by the bourgeois democrats and the Social-Democrats.
Our Programme is based entirely on the scientific, and moreover the materialist, world-outlook. An explanation of our Programme, therefore, necessarily includes an explanation of the true historical and economic roots of the religious fog. Our propaganda necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism; the publication of the appropriate scientific literature, which the autocratic feudal government has hitherto strictly forbidden and persecuted, must now form one of the fields of our Party work. We shall now probably have to follow the advice Engels once gave to the German Socialists: to translate and widely disseminate the literature of the eighteenth-century French Enlighteners and atheists.
That is the reason why we do not and should not set forth our atheism in our Programme; that is why we do not and should not prohibit proletarians who still retain vestiges of their old prejudices from associating themselves with our Party. We shall always preach the scientific world-outlook, and it is essential for us to combat the inconsistency of various Christians. But that does not mean in the least that the religious question ought to be advanced to first place, where it does not belong at all; nor does it mean that we should allow the forces of the really revolutionary economic and political struggle to be split up on account of third-rate opinions or senseless ideas, rapidly losing all political importance, rapidly being swept out as rubbish by the very course of economic development."
The answer to this question will serve to explain the very important difference in the way the question of religion is presented by the bourgeois democrats and the Social-Democrats.
Our Programme is based entirely on the scientific, and moreover the materialist, world-outlook. An explanation of our Programme, therefore, necessarily includes an explanation of the true historical and economic roots of the religious fog. Our propaganda necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism; the publication of the appropriate scientific literature, which the autocratic feudal government has hitherto strictly forbidden and persecuted, must now form one of the fields of our Party work. We shall now probably have to follow the advice Engels once gave to the German Socialists: to translate and widely disseminate the literature of the eighteenth-century French Enlighteners and atheists.
That is the reason why we do not and should not set forth our atheism in our Programme; that is why we do not and should not prohibit proletarians who still retain vestiges of their old prejudices from associating themselves with our Party. We shall always preach the scientific world-outlook, and it is essential for us to combat the inconsistency of various Christians. But that does not mean in the least that the religious question ought to be advanced to first place, where it does not belong at all; nor does it mean that we should allow the forces of the really revolutionary economic and political struggle to be split up on account of third-rate opinions or senseless ideas, rapidly losing all political importance, rapidly being swept out as rubbish by the very course of economic development."
(Stalin - whom Lenin hated - had a much more violent attitude towards religion. I'll see if I can find anything written by Stalin to show the difference.)
--------------------------------------
[EDIT] In an essay called The Attitude of the Worker's Party to Religion, Lenin also writes:
"Social-Democracy bases its whole world-outlook on scientific socialism, i.e., Marxism. The philosophical basis of Marxism, as Marx and Engels repeatedly declared, is dialectical materialism, which has fully taken over the historical traditions of eighteenth-century materialism in France and of Feuerbach (first half of the nineteenth century) in Germany -- a materialism which is absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion."
He also adds a note on when atheist propaganda may be harmful:
"To preach atheism at such a moment and in such circumstances would only be playing into the hands of the priest and the priests, who desire nothing better than that the division of the workers according to their participation in the strike movement should be replaced by their division according to their belief in God. An anarchist who preached war against God at all costs would in effect be helping the priests and the bourgeoisie (as the anarchists always do help the bourgeoisie in practice ). A Marxist must be a materialist, i.e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i.e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Notedstrangeperson
Well-Known Member
Belk: In an interview with the First American Labour Delegation, a delegate asks whether the Russian Communist Party should take a more neutral view towards religion.
Stalin's reply was odd - he said that being an atheist was not a requirement for joining the Communist party (despite accusations of members being expelled for believing in God), but also said: "Does that mean the Party is neutral towards religion? No, it does not. We conduct, and will continue to conduct, propaganda against religious prejudices."
He continues by saying that this is a sign of the separation of Church and state and that religious beliefs are "a matter of conscience of the individual"*. Most damningly, he admits:
This adds weight to the idea that people were indeed expelled simply because they believed in God - or perhaps their atheism wasn't aggressive enough.
*It's unlikely he genuinely believed this, given the number of churchs and theists who were attacked and killed.
Stalin's reply was odd - he said that being an atheist was not a requirement for joining the Communist party (despite accusations of members being expelled for believing in God), but also said: "Does that mean the Party is neutral towards religion? No, it does not. We conduct, and will continue to conduct, propaganda against religious prejudices."
He continues by saying that this is a sign of the separation of Church and state and that religious beliefs are "a matter of conscience of the individual"*. Most damningly, he admits:
Have we repressed the reactionary clergy? Yes, we have. The only unfortunate thing is that they have not been completely eliminated ... cases occur sometimes where certain members of the Party hinder the full development of the anti-religious propaganda. If such members are expelled it is a very good thing, because there is no room for such "Communists" in the ranks of our party.
This adds weight to the idea that people were indeed expelled simply because they believed in God - or perhaps their atheism wasn't aggressive enough.
*It's unlikely he genuinely believed this, given the number of churchs and theists who were attacked and killed.
Upvote
0
*sigh*
You still missed that it was because it undermined the all-powerfullness of the state.
Upvote
0
The goal of the Crusades was not to increase the power for a particular state. From Wiki:
"The Crusades were a series of religious wars, blessed by the Pope and the Catholic Church with the main goal of restoring Christian access to the holy places in and near Jerusalem."
The goal of the Crusades was religious in nature.
Upvote
0
- Mar 11, 2011
- 4,254
- 267
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Tiberius
I never said they were for the sole* purpose... my stance is that it was a purpose, these purposes are not exclusive.
Nonsense... an additional purpose. I cannot be refuted that he did purpose to establish atheism by those actions.
and I have not denied this... not even once! and it does not contradict my assertion that he was acting for the purpose of establishing atheism, that purpose was present too and it establishes my point. Note the absence of the words "sole" and "primary"
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Mar 11, 2011
- 4,254
- 267
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
I appreciate your post as I do the rest of yours that I remember, I do though deny that my position is harmful or dangerous at all because I have made no claims about people in general or about any belief system in general, there is nothing in my statements that would indicate any stance or prejudice toward any group of people or system.
I am speaking about specific peoples actions and accepting that those actions and intentions were their own.
I do not have the knowledge or ability to demonstrate that your position on the meaning of the phrase "in the name of" isn't simply extremely pedantic and as the word pedantic would imply... unreasonable.
I am under the impression that my usage of that phrase is within it's proper purpose and meaning but I could be wrong about that.
That being said I will drop that phrase from the discussion because I obviously can't objectively argue it in the way I intended to. Which was that those purposes were not exclusive and that those actions were done for the purpose of establishing atheism.
Now I continue to say that those crimes were done with atheist intent even if that intent does not accurately express the true nature of atheism. That falls within the meaning of the OP as is expressed within it.
reiterating:
Just as many crimes have been done by the nonreligious for nonreligious purposes as have been done by the religious and for religious purposes. and terrible crimes have also been done by atheists and also for atheistic purposes as their purpose was to express or establish some form or fashion of atheism.
Upvote
0
Right. So since these people had absolutely no interest in atheism apart from the power it could provide for the state, we can't say that atheism motivated violence in these cases.
You need to realise that in these cases atheism was just a tool to accomplish something.
The carpenter isn't motivated by his desire to use a hammer. He is motivated by his desire to create with wood. A hammer is simply a tool used to accomplish his desire.
Again, this shows my point that atheism is only a tool that was being used to get the job done, the the intended result.
When you get down to it, one can say, "Stalin was using X as a way of increasing power for the state." X can be anything. Atheism, communism, democracy, requiring all people to wear blue shirts. All of them are tools, and none of them actually provides motivation.
And what you say seems to contradict what you said here:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Mar 11, 2011
- 4,254
- 267
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Tiberius
It is clear that they did desire to establish atheism and that is a motivation.
The desire to establish atheism is clear, that that was a purpose is clear.
It also shows my point... that the purpose to establish atheism was present and relevant.
Display that Stalin did not intend to create an atheist community.
Then display that those actions were not for that purpose.
It doesn't.
It is clear that they did desire to establish atheism and that is a motivation.
The desire to establish atheism is clear, that that was a purpose is clear.
It also shows my point... that the purpose to establish atheism was present and relevant.
.
Display that Stalin did not intend to create an atheist community.
Then display that those actions were not for that purpose.
It doesn't.
Upvote
0
Here´s why I find the wording "in the name of atheism/for the purpose of atheism" questionable (to say it mildly):
Once we know that someone is pusrsuing A as a means or tool for pursuing B it becomes misleading to say that he´s acting "in the name of A" or that "A is his purpose".
Upvote
0
it is clear that they wanted power and they used atheism to take power away from the church, because the power of the church was competition with the state's power, and they didn't want competition.
Once again, I ask if you really think Stalin mainly wanted atheism because he thought it would be good for the people.
You seem to not grasp the difference between atheism as the end goal and atheism as a tool to achieve some other end goal.
Did the inventor of the hammer seek to create a society in which all carpenters used hammers? No.
You seem to think that I am claiming that Stalin did not want an atheistic community. I am not saying that. I am saying that he was motivated to do so because of the increased power it would give the state, not because he thought atheism was really neat.
So then you are really saying that Stalin did what he did just because he thought atheism was cool, and he wanted everyone else to think so? "Hey guys! Atheism's cool! You should all play!"
My goodness.
Upvote
0
- Mar 11, 2011
- 4,254
- 267
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
None of that is able to deny my simple assertion... that he did what he did because he wanted to establish atheism.... him having additional or greater priorities/purposes or even for another reason does not deny that.
Unless you can prove that he did not desire to establish atheism... you have no point to continue conversation on.
Unless you can prove that he did not desire to establish atheism... you have no point to continue conversation on.
Upvote
0
If you concede that the point of establishing atheism is not his ultimate goal... that it was not the cause of his atrocities, you've made your point. But why even make the point? You've just conceded that atheism has nothing to do with his crimes against humanity.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Mar 11, 2011
- 4,254
- 267
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
My point is that he did things for the purpose of establishing atheism and that point remains. That never needed to be his end goal or highest priority or purpose.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Mar 11, 2011
- 4,254
- 267
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Too simple? Heh...
My assertion is very simple and implies no animosity toward any group or system or belief. It is not my problem that people insist that I have an agenda or insist that i've said far more than I have or insist that I mean more than I say.
From the beginning of this thread until now I have belabored the point that I have no concern at all about atheism or people of that group.
My point remains... he did terrible things in order to establish atheism. It isn't TOO simple, as if there's some penalty for not simply attacking or having a threatening agenda or point that one must be compelled to defend themselves from I don't participate in such discussions and I refuse to be talked into letting this be one of them just so as soon as I do attack atheism as a whole I can be disqualified on the grounds of logical fallacies.
Upvote
0
Well, in your search for motives/intentions/purposes you are willing to stop half-ways. I don´t know why that is (I haven´t accused you of showing animosity or anything). Everyone is free to describe things as selectively as they wish - but I am free to point out that you are doing exactly that, knowingly accepting that your resulting statement is misleading.
The problem here is that you are defending yourself against an accusation I haven´t made.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Mar 11, 2011
- 4,254
- 267
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
I never said you accused me of anything, if it didn't apply to you then it didn't apply to you.
I have not stopped halfway, it is clear that he did desire to establish atheism and that he did things to meet that goal and those things were terrible. It never needed to be his very end goal and I don't need to argue that it was.
I have not stopped halfway, it is clear that he did desire to establish atheism and that he did things to meet that goal and those things were terrible. It never needed to be his very end goal and I don't need to argue that it was.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
