Latin America Communism and atheism

[asianboy]

As you know, crimes where anti-religion - which does not have to mean atheism- was involved in never had anti-religion as the biggest source of motivation. Usually, commie anti-capitalism and nationalism were more responsible for the crime than irreligiousness.
On the other hand, crimes where religions were involved in occasionally have religion as the main motivation factor for evil. In these types of situations, politics and money tend to be of lesser influence.
Religion can motivate evil in all types of government; anti-religion can only be evil in communism.***

Based on this, the idea that atheism is not as evil as religion is already well supported. However, this argument can be supported further with what i would be mentioning next:

I have read some of Che Guevara's speeches, and they do not contain any support of irreligion. Instead, they only contain his bashing of capitalism and western imperialism.
Is it true that Communism in Latin America did not have any element of Anti-Religion in it?

I have also heard that the Church even supported these communistic groups. However,I'm not quite sure if this was true. Did the Church really financially support these communistic organizations?



Thank you

*** I have supported this in the other forum. If you are interested, here's the link:
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/view...p?f=20&t=85659

[Tankbuster]

Since atheism is simply being without a belief in God, saying that it is responsible for the crimes of communism is non-sensical to begin with.

But now that you mention it, I don't recall that the kind of priest prosecution that happened in Spain and Russia also happened in South America... You could very well be right.

[asianboy]

Since atheism is simply being without a belief in God, saying that it is responsible for the crimes of communism is non-sensical to begin with.

But now that you mention it, I don't recall that the kind of priest prosecution that happened in Spain and Russia also happened in South America... You could very well be right.

But at least communistic anti-religion is involved in the crimes of communism. Yes, anti-religion does not have to mean atheism. But the religious could rightfully be suspicious, since some of the communist states did encourage atheism.
Anyways, it's better to not completely denounce the anti-religion involvement in communism. Such moves can make us atheists seem unreasonable. Instead, it's better to show that, even if anti-religion was involved in crime, it is not as dangerous as religion.

[Tankbuster]

But at least communistic anti-religion is involved in the crimes of communism. Yes, anti-religion does not have to mean atheism. But the religious could rightfully be suspicious, since some of the communist states did encourage atheism.
Anyways, it's better to not completely denounce the anti-religion involvement in communism. Such moves can make us atheists seem unreasonable. Instead, it's better to show that, even if anti-religion was involved in crime, it is not as dangerous as religion.

Of course I'm not denouncing it. Communism was very clearly anti-religious; Marx was convinced that this would slow or stall the communist revolution that he was waiting for. It's in that context that he calls it 'the heart of the helpless world' 'the sigh of the oppressed creature', and eventually the most (mis)quoted (and in my opinion, the least succesfull) analogy 'the opiate of the people'.

What I was hoping to indicate is that the crimes of communism came from the desire to establish an utopic society that encompassed, amongst other things, atheism. The anti-religious nature of communism was entirely political.
That doesn't make it any less dogmatic, of course.

One of the big debates is between those who think the "Revolution" should change it's view on abortion for the purpose of gathering more support.

I didn't even know that communism entailed a certain stance on abortion...

[Justice and Mercy]

I didn't even know that communism entailed a certain stance on abortion...

Just going off of what the Reds say.

[Taiji]

Title change to 'anti-religion' instead of 'atheism' to avoid confusion perhaps. Interesting post though

I would say that anti-religion is a motivation of evil regardless of the regime. Anti-religious people want to take away your right to do as you will with regard to religion. It's the kind of crap you can only get away with as a result of cultural trauma. Bad thing happens -> blame religion -> ban religion. Just like bad thing happens -> blame iraq -> steal oil... you can get away with a lot of injustice in the name of justice using a traumatised public.

[asianboy]

Title change to 'anti-religion' instead of 'atheism' to avoid confusion perhaps. Interesting post though

I would say that anti-religion is a motivation of evil regardless of the regime. Anti-religious people want to take away your right to do as you will with regard to religion. It's the kind of crap you can only get away with as a result of cultural trauma. Bad thing happens -> blame religion -> ban religion. Just like bad thing happens -> blame iraq -> steal oil... you can get away with a lot of injustice in the name of justice using a traumatised public.

Think before you speak, my friend. I can be a vegetarian (anti-meat eating person), but this does not mean that I want to destroy the rights that allow people to do whatever they want such as eating meat. Same with irreligion/anti-religion. Being anti-religious does not mean that you want to destroy religion for good.

In fact, many examples exist today. In countries like Norway, Sweden and Britain, a great many people are atheists. Now the polls seem inaccurate, with results ranging from 30% to 80% (WTF???!!!) of the people being atheistic. We have to wait for better studies. However, the one thing that we know for sure is that, collectively, the people of that country seems to be irreligious/anti-religious/non-religious (you can still believe in deities and still be irreligious). Yet, these countries are very tolerant of religion. In fact, they are so tolerant that they are still technically theocracies.***
*** "Dieu et mon droit" (God and my right) and "God Save the Queen" in Britain

So now we have established the fact that anti-religion is not dangerous and can only be dangerous once it is in the communistic states. We shall call this "Communistic Anti-Religion".

As we know Communism seems to be short lived. The Soviet Union collasped after only 74 years. The CCP in China was only in power for 60 years and it seems like change is coming soon. If Communism is short lived, then "Communistic Anti-Religion" would have the same duration.

The religious equivalent of "Communistic Anti-Religion" would be a "Theocracy". The Holy Roman Empire lasted from 962 to 1806, which is 844 years. I'll be very nice and fair by not counting the period of decline. In that case, the Empire would last 686 years.

[Last Roman]

anti-religion is hardly motivated by "evil" but rather that the church was often seen as part of the power structure. So it is easy to tell why rebels in Latin America became "anti-religious"

[Taiji]

Anti-religion does not mean atheism although it probably helps if you're going to do a thorough job of it. Many religious people are anti-(other)religion and want to help people see their 'truth' instead of the 'truth' of some other religion. It is certainly faith-based stuff, the negative/positive effects of religion cannot be measured to the extent where they can rationally be deemed harmful or beneficial, you need faith to leap one way or the other.

[finsternis]

I can see the church supporting Communism. Remember, communism is an utopia-like system of government (hence why it doesn't work). It encourages community love and sacrifice for the great good. Those are all church teachings (hence why they don't work).

Pretty much, the reason why Communism doesn't work is the same reason why Jesus' teachings don't work (ironic, isn't it).

[Justice and Mercy]

If the Communists in South America were anti-religous they would get nowhere.

Latinos seem very pious.

EDIT: Does anyone ever visit Commie forums? One of the big debates is between those who think the "Revolution" should change it's view on abortion for the purpose of gathering more support.

[Taiji]

I don't think that thinking more would have helped, I'm a bit slow you see...

You don't specify the location of the religion, you're right to pick me up on that it, was a foolish assumption and my god I am so embarrased now. I've been pwned... lol

edit: but at least I don't make dumb titles

[Ó Cathasaigh]

So, I'm taking a jump here, what you're saying is....the actions of Communist regimes cannot be blamed on their atheism? Can the same be said of the USSR, China, or the Khmer Rouge?

[Claudius Gothicus]

BS the commie guerrilla groups in LA where quite anti religion especially anti church, but many priests sided with them because of of the social views, you know help the poor guys and stuff, but really except for maybe ERP(In Argentina) and some groups in Colombia most of them weren't really that much Lefty, for the most part they had populist views they used the commie cause as their own to obtain power and failed in most cases, Allende's government had a great start but he ed up the economy big time, and so the pressure groups(Church, USA and Military) kicked him out.
Organized religion was very opposed to communism in Latin America but there were some branches of the Catholic Church that openly supported them, of course their were first in line during the repression that followed.

But yeah you can't blame atheism for communists crimes the same way you can't blame religions for fundies.

[Da Skinna]

The second born son of royalty or nobility would enter to be a man of the cloth.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

But yeah you can't blame atheism for communists crimes the same way you can't blame religions for fundies.

I don't agree. You can't give them total blame but to abstain them from any blame is just ludicrous.

[Taiji]

I don't agree. You can't give them total blame but to abstain them from any blame is just ludicrous.

Is religion also partly to blame in this general instance?

Clearly atheism doesn't cause anti-religion or there would be a hell of a lot more of it. But perhaps there is a case for considering that religion itself causes anti-religion, when it appears to misbehave.

Like we have with religious people claiming that their religion is the motivation and justification for their violence; suicide bombing, sectarian violence, etc.

Or those religious people that prey on others, treat their religion as a gang, etc.

Or religious scripture that would have us believe laughable crap instead of trying to find out stuff for ourselves, design 'theory', etc.

Religions on the face of it have much to offer an 'anti' perspective to the small-minded(I mean lacking the bigger picture or detail, not stupid).

[Tankbuster]

I don't agree. You can't give them total blame but to abstain them from any blame is just ludicrous.

Only if you're also going to partly blame religion for every murder for political and economic reasons that has every been done.

I personally abstain religion from guilt in any case of political or social murder. So I do the same with atheism in this instance.

Consistency is key.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Only if you're also going to partly blame religion for every murder for political and economic reasons that has every been done.

I personally abstain religion from guilt in any case of political or social murder. So I do the same with atheism in this instance.

Consistency is key.

QFT, people is people if religion didn't existed we would be killing ourselves for whatever reason we come up with, it's in our nature.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Only if you're also going to partly blame religion for every murder for political and economic reasons that has every been done.

I personally abstain religion from guilt in any case of political or social murder. So I do the same with atheism in this instance.

Consistency is key.

Do I blame Religion for things like the Crusades or The Inquisition? No. I blame the concept or religion, as being the vessel with which these things happened. The Pope gets blame, the Inquisition gets the blame. If the religion itself was based on fighting and killing, then I would blame it. Instead I blame the individuals who misused their positions and twisted their religion to meet their own ends. Anything can be done in the name of religion. Just as anything can be done in the name of the State, or in the name of keeping the world clean.
If someone can find me some kind of justification for actions like murder in their religion, then I'll blame their religion. But if someone just decides to do something bad and then hide behind religion, then I blame the person.

I will agree though, consistency is key. I think people point to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc, as a reaction against the constant finger pointing at people like Hitler as some kind of proof that religion is the bane of humanity. It's a defense against accusations that Religion is the spawn of violence and that without it, we would be peaceful. I would, and I hope you would too, shoot that idea down as complete crap. The point is not that Atheism is inherently violent, but that humanity is.