Atheist Atrocities and a Confusion of Causes

[Peter]

Joseph Stalin. His belief in the requirement of Atheism in order to create the perfect communist party led him to persecute the church through a campaign of terror including destruction of churches, state ordered anti-religious propaganda in school, and the execution of more than 100,000 Monks, Nuns, and Priests during the purges of 1937–1938.

I suppose technically you are correct Apeman but are you sure he didn't just view religion as a threat to his own god status? It was probably more like, "I'm gonna kill all you suckers because I'm the god you should be worshipping." Stalin wasn't an atheist, he worshipped himself! Hitler was the same way.

[Chris the Chees]

Joseph Stalin. His belief in the requirement of Atheism in order to create the perfect communist party led him to persecute the church through a campaign of terror including destruction of churches, state ordered anti-religious propaganda in school, and the execution of more than 100,000 Monks, Nuns, and Priests during the purges of 1937–1938.

Three points:

Firstly, the bulk of Stalin's anti-religious persecution occured in 1929-1930, during major wave of collectivisation and modernisation of Soviet agriculture; and he had to curtail the crackdown when it became too unpopular - this was nearly a decade before the Great Purge.

Secondly, this was because Stalin perceived the Orthadox Church and peasant religion as being a primary obstacle to the specific policy of speedy agricultural revolution and collectivisation - not because, as in the case of Nazi attacks on European Jews, because erradicating religion was a necessary staple part of Stalinist ideology. Rather Stalin mocked religion as backward nonsense, backwards nonsense that would dissolve under modernisation. Of course that did not stop him temporarily attempting to suppress the church, which as you noted included considerable vandalism and destruction of churches and the arrest of members of the clergy. However, it was only temporary, as soon as Stalin tried to stir up Russian nationalism he and the Church kissed and made up. Again, this was because, contrary to your assertions, anti-religious fervour was not a major part of Stalin's outlook, he persecuted the Church because he saw it as a hinderance to specific policies, but as soon as he saw its potential to aid policy he reversed his position. Which is why the Church was promptly back as an accepted and celebrated part of public life, along with a Holy Synod and Patriarch of Moscow, during the Second World War.

Thirdly, the Stalinist regime did not execute 100,000 religious 'officials' during the Great Purge. There is no evidence for that claim. Not only would it mean that around 15% of all the victims from the purge came from the churchs which is massively high proportion given the character of the purges, it is also not sourced or, I suspect, even capable of being sourced. The NKVD files listed convicts under vague charges such as "counterrevolutionary offenses", "Dangerous crimes against the administrative order" and "socially harmful elements", nothing precise enough to give a concrete estimate like 100,000.

So have you a source for this or did you just make it up?


For info on Stalin's general distain for religion and mercenary approach to oppressing, and then championing, it, see:

Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives, pp. 293; 413; 430; 999.

For purge stats see:

Arch Getty, Gzibor T. Rittersporn, and Viktor N. Zemskov; 'Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-war Years: A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence', in The American Historical Review, Vol. 98, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), pp. 1017-1049.

[Senor Hoint]

not because, as in the case of Nazi attacks on European Jews, because erradicating religion

Would you say the Nazis were out to eradicate religion in general, or just what they called "Jewry," though? The Nazis had an official understanding with the Catholic Church and Hitler publicly claimed he was a Catholic (though his private statements seem somewhat more ambiguous).

[Chris the Chees]

Would you say the Nazis were out to eradicate religion in general, or just what they called "Jewry," though? The Nazis had an official understanding with the Catholic Church and Hitler publicly claimed he was a Catholic (though his private statements seem somewhat more ambiguous).

Yeah, that was a pretty poorly worded post on my part. To clarify; Hitler wasn't in the buisness of destroying religion - rather he championed it and saw its centrality to the Third Reich (provided it was suitably moulded to suit the Nazi purpose). My point was that destroying European Jews was central to Nazi ideology, because the Nazis were fixated with the belief that Jews were evil vermin. Stalin had no such overriding hatred for religion, as Apeman suggested, that steered his anti-religious policies. Rather his temporary attempt to suppress the Orthadox Church was primarily a part of a plan to reduce peasant resistance to the soviet agricultural policies of 1929-30. And when that became unpopular he dropped it, and when he needed to whip up peasant morale, during the war, he championed the church.

In short, my point was that Apeman was wrong. Furthermore, even lenin, under whose regime a thousand clergy actually were shot, never outlawed religion or utterly dismantled the Orthadox Church, and the Soviet's allowed freedom of religion in their constitution despite being formally athiest.

Of course, in practise, Soviet policy towards religion was complex, some religious groups fared worse than others, particularly under Stalin, based on how dangerous he percieved them to be to his own power and that of his regime. Catholics in Eastern European States, for example, many of whom found themselves in the Soviet Union after their countries were annexed during WW2, were heavily persecuted. This was because the regime feared their allegence to Rome as opposed to the State. As a result a large portion of the Catholic Clergy were arrested, in some cases shot, but more often sent to slave labour camps.

But the idea that Stalin executed 100,000 clergy, and various other church 'officialdom', in 1937-38 and did so out of some burning athiestic hatred of religion is a mutated coldwar fabrication without basis. Firstly, the statistic is obvious nonsense and anachronistic nonsense at that, Secondly, the charge ignores Stalin's actual policies towards religion.

I hope that clarifies my point.

[finder]

True, one would be hard pressed to find someone who would say, "I'm fighting for atheism, death to theists." But atheist have and do take up secular causes that progress to be just as sinister as any perverted religious cause. That's what atheist do, take on the causes of secularism so of course the paper trail will lead to something political or financial. But all the things that are part of a person's character are involved in the decisions the person makes. And that includes atheists as well.

[Jack]

That's what atheist do, take on the causes of secularism so of course the paper trail will lead to something political or financial.

How does that account for atheists supporting those aspects of the Constitution that establish the United States as a secular, pluralistic nation, the only type of government that can assure that both your and my beliefs and opinions enjoy equal standing without favor to either?

[hensatri]

The fact they claim religion as their impetus means nothing unless their religion actually justifies it.

Exactly, which is why I gave the example of "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" being direct justification (provided of course that you assume the text is divinly authoritative) to kill a witch. There is not such instructive material anywhere in Atheism.

Like Stalin. His belief in the requirement of Atheism in order to create the perfect communist party led him to persecute the church through a campaign of terror including destruction of churches, state ordered anti-religious propaganda in school, and the execution of more than 100,000 Monks, Nuns, and Priests during the purges of 1937–1938.

There is absolutely nothing in Atheism, or Humanism, or Secularism, or Naturalism, or Science, that says anything about persecuti0ng the religious, destroying churches, executing Nuns, ect. It is obvious that this man hated organized religion with a passion, but a religious person could also do that, or a person of a different religion, or a person who was indifferent to religion at all but hated the social construct of the church on a culture. You go out there and find me a single passage from any influential writing on Atheism, Humanism, Secularism, Naturalism, or Science that says the world is made better by anti-religious genocide, and I will concede this argument immediately. You find me the secular humanist version of the passage "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and I will sing your praises as having won the day.

I dare say you wont be able to do it, and in the mean time all you have proven here is that a man who is an Atheist can also be a genocidal control freak who is against the organized preaching of ideals not under his direct control.

I'm not prepared to have my world view compared to Stalin because, out of the plethora of things the two of us believed, we shared one particular stance on whether or not there is likely a God. You will be hard pressed to convince me that "I do not believe in a personal God" somehow gets you to "millions of dead farmers and priests". On the other hand, Christians are on tenuous ground crying foul on the stoning to death of children when the religious text both they and perpetrators promote clearly endorses the action, and their only recourse is to fall back on long-winded discussions and dissections to explain why this passage or that law should be ignored despite the supposed eternal wisdom of the whole affair.

[hensatri]

But atheist have and do take up secular causes that progress to be just as sinister as any perverted religious cause.

Then name the secular cause and we can discuss and debate that separately. I am perfectly content to compartmentalize my world views rather than toss them all (or most of them) under one heading labeled "Unquestionable and Authoritative". I am perfectly content to be a humanist for entirely different reasons than why I am an Atheist, and a Scientific Naturalist for different reasons still.

As I said before, with religion, you get a package deal. It's hard to say Jesus is the authoritative son of God when tells us to turn the other cheek, and then make excuses for why he's not so authoritative when he endorses the stoning to death of children. Atheism is not a package deal, evolution, humanism, secularism, naturalism, all of these things can, and do, operate quite independently of Atheism.

So, you are exactly right, Atheist can hold other beliefs and causes that are bad, but those things are not part of atheism, and if you want to attack those other terrible things, you'll likely find me right there beside you fighting too.

[Apeman81]

Exactly, which is why I gave the example of "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" being direct justification (provided of course that you assume the text is divinly authoritative) to kill a witch. There is not such instructive material anywhere in Atheism.



There is absolutely nothing in Atheism, or Humanism, or Secularism, or Naturalism, or Science, that says anything about persecuti0ng the religious, destroying churches, executing Nuns, ect. It is obvious that this man hated organized religion with a passion, but a religious person could also do that, or a person of a different religion, or a person who was indifferent to religion at all but hated the social construct of the church on a culture. You go out there and find me a single passage from any influential writing on Atheism, Humanism, Secularism, Naturalism, or Science that says the world is made better by anti-religious genocide, and I will concede this argument immediately. You find me the secular humanist version of the passage "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and I will sing your praises as having won the day.

I dare say you wont be able to do it, and in the mean time all you have proven here is that a man who is an Atheist can also be a genocidal control freak who is against the organized preaching of ideals not under his direct control.

I'm not prepared to have my world view compared to Stalin because, out of the plethora of things the two of us believed, we shared one particular stance on whether or not there is likely a God. You will be hard pressed to convince me that "I do not believe in a personal God" somehow gets you to "millions of dead farmers and priests". On the other hand, Christians are on tenuous ground crying foul on the stoning to death of children when the religious text both they and perpetrators promote clearly endorses the action, and their only recourse is to fall back on long-winded discussions and dissections to explain why this passage or that law should be ignored despite the supposed eternal wisdom of the whole affair.

How do you imagine to compare a belief system, theism, with a non-belief system, atheism?

What are the tenets of atheism? Where are the codified? Is there a "NonBible" you follow?

The premise you followed is flawed.

However, it is demonstrable that some people choose to use their belief or non-belief system to justify atrocities. I have yet to hear a cogent argument by any who have that their belief or non-belief system actually justified their actions

[grandpa]

How do you imagine to compare a belief system, theism,
with a non-belief system, atheism?
What are the tenets of atheism?

I am trying to understand a single system of theism, and plainly failing. I would have a rough time comparing something I don't really understand.

Atheism is not replacing one thing with another really, unless known, observable existence is considered an atheistic claim.

Grandpa h.

[Senor Hoint]

But the idea that Stalin executed 100,000 clergy, and various other church 'officialdom', in 1937-38 and did so out of some burning athiestic hatred of religion is a mutated coldwar fabrication without basis.

I would have pointed it out if you hadn't. Given the fact that, after the German invasion Stalin changed his tune (I believe he made a public understanding with the patriarch), the fact that he did suppress (or at least attempt to suppress) peasant religion can only be from expediency (as you said, he saw the churches, both Orthodox and Catholic, as potential sources of opposition to him).

How do you imagine to compare a belief system, theism, with a non-belief system, atheism?

What are the tenets of atheism? Where are the codified? Is there a "NonBible" you follow?

The premise you followed is flawed.

However, it is demonstrable that some people choose to use their belief or non-belief system to justify atrocities. I have yet to hear a cogent argument by any who have that their belief or non-belief system actually justified their actions

Except that there are passages in the Abramic religious books detailing how the followers of God are allowed (in some cases, expected) to use violent means against unbelievers. Being that there aren't even any atheist or humanist "holy texts," how can you claim that "non-belief systems" cause people to justify or perpetrate atrocities? Can you bring up even a single historical example of state-sponsored persecution in the name of atheism?

[Apeman81]

Except that there are passages in the Abramic religious books detailing how the followers of God are allowed (in some cases, expected) to use violent means against unbelievers. Being that there aren't even any atheist or humanist "holy texts," how can you claim that "non-belief systems" cause people to justify or perpetrate atrocities? Can you bring up even a single historical example of state-sponsored persecution in the name of atheism?

The comparison at hand is based upon a false analogy. How can one accurately compare what a belief in a codified religion can be asserted to justify versus what a "belief" in a non-codified non-religion can be asserted to justify.

You make my point! A codified religion has tenets that can be asserted to justify action. Atheism has no code. So to what can one point to assert justification?

Please, by all means, defend the analogy.