The sliding scale of militancy - Atheism and Theism

[Plekhanov]

The double standard by which atheists are often called "militant" for merely being open about being atheists whereas theists have to be pretty much murder people or incite murder to be called 'militant' has long annoyed me. So I've drawn up 'sliding scales of militancy' for aims and actions with the hope atheists might find them a useful resource in debates to quickly highlight the extent of this double standard:

[Darth Wong]

That chart is a bit too complicated to read. I prefer to say it more simply:

A militant atheist is an atheist whose opinions are as aggressive as a Christian militant's actions.

[madd0ct0r]

it's not too complicated, but it is a little small.

that also looks to be far more USA orientated. A full half of the mainstream religion stuff would be considered militant (or at least extreme) in the UK.

[Plekhanov]

That chart is a bit too complicated to read. I prefer to say it more simply:

A militant atheist is an atheist whose opinions are as aggressive as a Christian militant's actions.

They're easier to follow fullsize (which you can do if you if you follow this link then click on the individual images) for some reason the board seems to have shrunk them. Is there anyway I could edit the post to increase the size at which they're displayed?

One liners such as that are obviously much easier to use, I drew up the charts as I wanted a way to really hammer home the way in which the worst of us 'shrill', 'extreme', 'totalitarian', 'militant' atheists in terms of both our aims and actions are on a par with the likes of Quakers and Unitarians.

[Lord Zentei]

It's unsurprising considering that atheists are apparently as mistrusted as rapists, and because the status quo is pretty pro-theist. People are usually more likely to be characterized as "militant" or "shrill" if they appear to want to rock the boat.

Though I suspect that theists would readily characterize some new atheists as being more militant by pointing to some of those items, such as Aims #6 and #7, and more than that by claiming that they want to "kill religion", so that #12 would apply to them too. Perhaps some kind of clarification would be needed on those points.

[Plekhanov]

it's not too complicated, but it is a little small.

that also looks to be far more USA orientated. A full half of the mainstream religion stuff would be considered militant (or at least extreme) in the UK.

All the positions on the scale are obviously arguable, I limited it to 3 categories for ease of reading as a brit I think they're defensible.

Sunday school & faith schools are common, it's by no means unusual for people to covert to catholicism, judaism... to marry, whenever the Sunday trading laws come up for review pretty much all the churches oppose reform and hardly anyone seems to see that as 'extreme', the MCB opposes the right to draw cartoons of Muhammed.

[Plekhanov]

It's unsurprising considering that atheists are apparently as mistrusted as rapists, and because the status quo is pretty pro-theist. People are usually more likely to be characterized as "militant" or "shrill" if they appear to want to rock the boat.

Though I suspect that theists would readily characterize some new atheists as being more militant by pointing to some of those items, such as Aims #6 and #7,

Could you expand upon this please as I'm not aware of atheist morals which could be imposed by legislation & I'm not aware of any attempts to acquire state funding for atheist institutions, secular institutions sure but not atheist ones.

and more than that by claiming that they want to "kill religion", so that #12 would apply to them too. Perhaps some kind of clarification would be needed on those points.

You sure? I've never met (even online) an atheist who wanted to demolish cathedrals, every last copy of the bible or any other religious text, handel's messiah and all other artworks that reference or are inspired by religion.

Plenty of atheists would like to use persuasion to convince everyone that there's no god, practically none would have dynamited the Buddahs of Bamiyan.

[Lord Zentei]

I'm not suggesting that such accusations by theists would be accurate, merely that they would likely try and make them. For instance, teaching critical thinking in schools is often seen by them as an attack on religion since it causes children to question doctrine.

As for #12, demolishing cathedrals and every last copy of the bible is not something anyone advocates, but people accuse atheists of wanting to secularize America, which would lead to a society where religion doesn't exist. They don't distinguish aims from methods (as DW pointed out earlier).

Plenty of atheists would like to use persuasion to convince everyone that there's no god, practically none would have dynamited the Buddahs of Bamiyan.

Precisely: and that's an important distinction you need to include in your chart.

[Plekhanov]

I'm not suggesting that such accusations by theists would be accurate, merely that they would likely try and make them. For instance, teaching critical thinking in schools is often seen by them as an attack on religion since it causes children to question doctrine.

Unless they actively teach that there's no god (which I'd oppose) that would go under #4 Secular schools which promote no religious position above any other.

As for #12, demolishing cathedrals and every last copy of the bible is not something anyone advocates, but people accuse atheists of wanting to secularize America, which would lead to a society where religion doesn't exist. They don't distinguish aims from methods (as DW pointed out earlier).

Plenty of atheists would like to use persuasion to convince everyone that there's no god, practically none would have dynamited the Buddahs of Bamiyan.

Precisely: and that's an important distinction you need to include in your chart.

The Taliban didn't just advocate that they enforced it.

Obviously the chart isn't going to magically stop people trying to equate the state staying above religious matters to "All traces of rival positions on religion be erased from society", it's just intended to help point out what an absurd claim that is.

[Ultonius]

In the 'Aims' chart, I'm not sure if Point 11 necessarily belongs at the militant end of 'Mainstream'. There are Christian denominations that place a strong emphasis on religious unity within the family by the means you describe in the chart, but have little to no desire to use the state to promote their beliefs or punish those opposed to those beliefs.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

I wonder, would you ever see actually militant atheists or secularist? I mean armed and taking offensive type actions as opposed to defensive (which I totally could see with the way some religious people act).

[Lord Zentei]

The Taliban didn't just advocate that they enforced it.

Obviously the chart isn't going to magically stop people trying to equate the state staying above religious matters to "All traces of rival positions on religion be erased from society", it's just intended to help point out what an absurd claim that is.

Quite, but the point was that you could make it clearer and thus harder to misunderstand, since I've spoken to theists who genuinely don't acknowledge the distinction.

I wonder, would you ever see actually militant atheists or secularist? I mean armed and taking offensive type actions as opposed to defensive (which I totally could see with the way some religious people act).

Some communist and anarchist movements have been pretty proactively anti-religious.

[Lord of the Abyss]

I wonder, would you ever see actually militant atheists or secularist? I mean armed and taking offensive type actions as opposed to defensive (which I totally could see with the way some religious people act).

Some communist and anarchist movements have been pretty proactively anti-religious.

The Communists though are basically acting just as a rival religion would; they aren't trying to promote atheism, they are trying to eliminate all competition with Communism. Their driving force is Communism, not atheism.

[Darth Wong]

I wonder, would you ever see actually militant atheists or secularist? I mean armed and taking offensive type actions as opposed to defensive (which I totally could see with the way some religious people act).

Technically, you could argue that any military or police action motivated by stopping a violation of human rights is a secularist militant action. Human rights are a secular humanist invention (although most Americans seem to be under the misconception that human rights are "God-given"). But who's going to try to paint human rights defenders as bad people? Nobody, so I don't think you'll ever see religionists describing secular militants that way.

[Lord Zentei]

I wonder, would you ever see actually militant atheists or secularist? I mean armed and taking offensive type actions as opposed to defensive (which I totally could see with the way some religious people act).

Some communist and anarchist movements have been pretty proactively anti-religious.

The Communists though are basically acting just as a rival religion would; they aren't trying to promote atheism, they are trying to eliminate all competition with Communism. Their driving force is Communism, not atheism.

That is certainly true, though they do qualify as "militant atheist or secularist" nonetheless.

[Darth Wong]

Some communist and anarchist movements have been pretty proactively anti-religious.

The Communists though are basically acting just as a rival religion would; they aren't trying to promote atheism, they are trying to eliminate all competition with Communism. Their driving force is Communism, not atheism.

That is certainly true, though they do qualify as "militant atheist or secularist" nonetheless.

True, but there's still a double standard in this definition. We don't consider a Christian to be a Christian militant even if he is engaging in militant actions, unless he is explicitly doing so in the name of Christianity. That is true even if those militant actions are directed against atheists. We didn't assume that every Christian soldier fighting aganist communism was necessarily being a "Christian militant".

Why would we adopt a different standard for a militant who happens to be atheist? Shouldn't we demand that he explicitly do so in the name of atheism if we're going to slap that title on him?

[JPaganel]

Why would we adopt a different standard for a militant who happens to be atheist? Shouldn't we demand that he explicitly do so in the name of atheism if we're going to slap that title on him?

In the case of Communists in Russia, at least in the 1920's and 30's they were quite specifically destroying various things in the name of atheism, not just because they happened to be atheist. It wasn't a shortage of firewood that prompted them to burn icons and it wasn't the high price of scrap metal that made them toss bells out of bell towers.

[Darth Wong]

Why would we adopt a different standard for a militant who happens to be atheist? Shouldn't we demand that he explicitly do so in the name of atheism if we're going to slap that title on him?

In the case of Communists in Russia, at least in the 1920's and 30's they were quite specifically destroying various things in the name of atheism, not just because they happened to be atheist. It wasn't a shortage of firewood that prompted them to burn icons and it wasn't the high price of scrap metal that made them toss bells out of bell towers.

Wrong. They were doing so in the name of communism, not atheism. They saw religion as an enemy of communism. None of them were screaming that they're destroying churches because there's no God. They were destroying churches for the workers' revolution against the old czarist state, and the power of church and state had been intertwined for hundreds of years.

This is something Americans don't understand. They see church and state as natural enemies, because that's the rhetoric they've been raised to believe, and they tend not to question it. But throughout most of history, church and state were so hopelessly intertwined that they could not be easily separated. If one opposed the state, he opposed the church. If one opposed the church, he would find himself being opposed by the state.

[JPaganel]

Wrong. They were doing so in the name of communism, not atheism. They saw religion as an enemy of communism. None of them were screaming that they're destroying churches because there's no God. They were destroying churches for the workers' revolution against the old czarist state, and the power of church and state had been intertwined for hundreds of years.

Actually, quite a few were. I can't claim to have been there personally to hear them, but I have spoken to people who were. I can't immediately point you at them because most are no longer alive. I can dig for some written sources, but they are likely to be in Russian.

On a side note, I didn't say "churches" for a reason. I was actually thinking of a story told in my family of a guy who chopped up his mother's personal icons that have been collected over several generations specifically to demonstrate to her that there is no God and he will not be smitten for such a sin. Ironically, it backfired, as he had some kind of an accident after getting drunk to celebrate his success in this endeavor and she took it as a manifestation of Lord's Wrath.

This is something Americans don't understand. They see church and state as natural enemies, because that's the rhetoric they've been raised to believe, and they tend not to question it. But throughout most of history, church and state were so hopelessly intertwined that they could not be easily separated. If one opposed the state, he opposed the church. If one opposed the church, he would find himself being opposed by the state.

I don't see them as natural enemies. I wasn't raised an American, either.

[Darth Wong]

Oh that's wonderful: you have evidence of people (probably religious themselves) who claim to have witnessed people screaming that they're fighting for atheism rather than communism, but they're conveniently dead and there are no written records either.

You're about two steps less credible than your average drunken UFO eyewitness.

[JPaganel]

Oh that's wonderful: you have evidence of people (probably religious themselves) who claim to have witnessed people screaming that they're fighting for atheism rather than communism, but they're conveniently dead and there are no written records either.

You're about two steps less credible than your average drunken UFO eyewitness.

I didn't say there are no records. I said I didn't have them handy. I don't live in a library and this isn't something I keep in my bookmarks on the off chance it may possibly come up in a thread on one of the boards I visit. The Museum of Religion and Atheism, where I recall seeing something relevant, has been renamed to Museum of History of Religion and changed it's focus accordingly over a decade ago.

Your knowledge on the subject comes from a completely impartial firsthand account, I take it?

[Ultonius]

This is something Americans don't understand. They see church and state as natural enemies, because that's the rhetoric they've been raised to believe, and they tend not to question it. But throughout most of history, church and state were so hopelessly intertwined that they could not be easily separated. If one opposed the state, he opposed the church. If one opposed the church, he would find himself being opposed by the state.

I suppose that one reason that this is a fairly common American view is that a fair proportion of Americans are descended from Europeans who opposed the state churches in their home countries and came to America to escape persecution. It is quite a major theme in the American founding story as well, with the separatist Pilgrims of the Plymouth Colony and the Puritans of Boston being seen as refugees trying to create a new home for them to practise their faith without interference.

When I was writing my post earlier about denominations that place a strong focus on keeping family members within their religion, while being disinterested in using legislative means to promote it, I was primarily thinking of Anabaptist groups such as the Mennonites and Amish. Both because of persecutions by Catholic and mainstream Protestant authorities and because of their interpretation of the Bible, these groups have traditionally, with rare exceptions such as the Munster theocrats, rejected the kind of 'militant' promotion of their beliefs outlined in Plekhanov's charts, believing that Christians who involve themselves in 'worldly' government will inevitably be corrupted by it.

Unfortunately, most other Christian groups seem to be at least potentially willing to grab political power when they have the chance. I suppose that one could argue that despite officially having separation between church and state, the USA for much of its history had sufficient numbers of voters who were members of various churches that those churches had a relatively large influence upon the law-making process. The growth of fundamentalism and in particular pro-Dominionist thought over the course of the 20th century may be a result of secularism and related social changes during the same period eroding traditional church influence in politics and creating a siege mentality, and a willingness to employ more 'militant' means to regain that influence.

[Darth Wong]

Oh that's wonderful: you have evidence of people (probably religious themselves) who claim to have witnessed people screaming that they're fighting for atheism rather than communism, but they're conveniently dead and there are no written records either.

You're about two steps less credible than your average drunken UFO eyewitness.

I didn't say there are no records. I said I didn't have them handy. I don't live in a library and this isn't something I keep in my bookmarks on the off chance it may possibly come up in a thread on one of the boards I visit. The Museum of Religion and Atheism, where I recall seeing something relevant, has been renamed to Museum of History of Religion and changed it's focus accordingly over a decade ago.

Your knowledge on the subject comes from a completely impartial firsthand account, I take it?

Oh, that's rich. So now you're saying that I need a citation for the idea that people participating in the communist revolution were doing what they did in the name of communism? Do you realize how stupid it sounds to ask for that? They publicly claimed it was communism in every conceivable way. They called themselves communists. They had a movement, and they claimed it was communism, not just atheism. What part of this did you sleep through in class?

[Lord Zentei]

True, but there's still a double standard in this definition. We don't consider a Christian to be a Christian militant even if he is engaging in militant actions, unless he is explicitly doing so in the name of Christianity. That is true even if those militant actions are directed against atheists. We didn't assume that every Christian soldier fighting aganist communism was necessarily being a "Christian militant".

Why would we adopt a different standard for a militant who happens to be atheist? Shouldn't we demand that he explicitly do so in the name of atheism if we're going to slap that title on him?

We shouldn't demand a different standard, of course.

But the Communists did have a requirement for atheism and secularism explicitly in their doctrine, so I'm sort of wondering what it would take to qualify as a "militant atheist" or a "militant secularist" if that does not qualify. Of course the Communists were doing this for the sake of Communism, not atheism in the general sense. But Communism is a secular philosophy, so I think that reasonably, they should qualify as "militant secularists" to the same degree as the Taliban would qualify as "militant theists"; the Taliban didn't fight for "theism" in the general sense either, but for a very specific form of such.

Moreover, Communists certainly can qualify as "militant anti-theists" (defining anti-theism as the position that religion is evil); while there's no logical connection between non-belief in god(s) and violence against religious people, there certainly is a logical connection between the positive thesis that religion is evil and violence against religious people. While that position doesn't cover all atheists by any means, it is nonetheless a subset of atheism since you would presumably need to a an atheist as a prerequisite for being an anti-theist.

[Plekhanov]

True, but there's still a double standard in this definition. We don't consider a Christian to be a Christian militant even if he is engaging in militant actions, unless he is explicitly doing so in the name of Christianity. That is true even if those militant actions are directed against atheists. We didn't assume that every Christian soldier fighting aganist communism was necessarily being a "Christian militant".

Why would we adopt a different standard for a militant who happens to be atheist? Shouldn't we demand that he explicitly do so in the name of atheism if we're going to slap that title on him?

We shouldn't demand a different standard, of course.

But the Communists did have a requirement for atheism and secularism explicitly in their doctrine, so I'm sort of wondering what it would take to qualify as a "militant atheist" or a "militant secularist" if that does not qualify. Of course the Communists were doing this for the sake of Communism, not atheism in the general sense. But Communism is a secular philosophy, so I think that reasonably, they should qualify as "militant secularists" to the same degree as the Taliban would qualify as "militant theists"; the Taliban didn't fight for "theism" in the general sense either, but for a very specific form of such.

Moreover, Communists certainly can qualify as "militant anti-theists" (defining anti-theism as the position that religion is evil); while there's no logical connection between non-belief in god(s) and violence against religious people, there certainly is a logical connection between the positive thesis that religion is evil and violence against religious people. While that position doesn't cover all atheists by any means, it is nonetheless a subset of atheism since you would presumably need to a an atheist as a prerequisite for being an anti-theist.

It doesn't make the slightest sense to describe Commies as "secularist" as they believed that religion just like everything should be subject to highly intrusive meddling by the state, both when religion was being repressed and when the Orthodox Church was rehabilitated to be used as an arm of the state in the war against the Nazis.

The use of the Church in the war effort also shows how silly it is to try and portray the Soviets as "militant atheists", atheism is by no means a fundamental part of Communism, North Korea is a defacto theocracy, post USSR Turkmenistan heavily pushed a revisionist variety of Islam and of course the Soviets made use of the Orthodox Church.

If those at the top of the party felt the revolution would be aided by repressing religion, in the way all manner of secular and atheist organisations and ideologies were repressed then religion was repressed. Alternately if those at the top of the party felt the revolution would be aided by using religion then religion was used. This could not have been the case if they were "militant atheists" but was all too possible for militant Communists.