Atheism and political apathy

[spidergoat]

What innocent Muslims? There are no innocent Muslims. The first quote from him? It was about the use of cluster bombs in Fallujah.

"If you're actually certain that you're hitting only a concentration of enemy troops"

More lies on your part.
I'm not going to defend his defense of invading Iraq, as I do not agree with it, but in no way does he object to secular society.

 

[S.A.M.]

"If you're actually certain that you're hitting only a concentration of enemy troops"

More lies on your part.
I'm not going to defend his defense of invading Iraq, as I do not agree with it, but in no way does he object to secular society.

He clearly said the death toll was not high enough: for this group of people?

On the evening of April 28, 2003, a crowd of 200 people defied a curfew imposed by the Americans and gathered outside a secondary school used as a military HQ to demand its reopening. Soldiers from the 82nd Airborne stationed on the roof of the building opened fire on the crowd, resulting in the deaths of 17 civilians and the wounding of over 70.

And since his definition of the "enemy" is

He continued on this path for some time, later saying that his “hatred” of fundamentalists, whom he characterized as being the majority of anti-U.S./U.K. forces in Iraq

I'd say he's got pretty much everyone in Iraq covered.

 

[spidergoat]

So in an abstract sense, Islamic Fundamentalists, the polar opposite of a secular society, are fine with you? Those are all he has little sympathy towards. They are presently ethnic cleansing Iraq neighborhoods based on religion, if not already done with the task. That doesn't have anything to do with fighting Americans.

 

[S.A.M.]

So in an abstract sense, Islamic Fundamentalists, the polar opposite of a secular society, are fine with you? Those are all he has little sympathy towards. They are presently ethnic cleansing Iraq neighborhoods based on religion, if not already done with the task. That doesn't have anything to do with fighting Americans.

Yeah, he's an ardent supporter of the Bush war in Iraq. Killing anti-US elements in an occupied country that has been bombed for 5 years gets him off. His reaction to the Fallujah killings was very telling in this aspect.

I consider him pathetic and irrelevant.

 

[spidergoat]

That's great. Now what? He's hawkish, as are many religious people, but he's not opposed to a secular society. He's married to a practicing Jew!

 

[S.A.M.]

And that makes it better? I think in that context, his comments on the backwardness of Hanukkah and such like are even more distasteful.

And yeah, its very secular to ask to ban religious practices.

The display of the menorah at this season, however, has a precise meaning and is an explicit celebration of the original victory of bloody-minded faith over enlightenment and reason. As such it is a direct negation of the First Amendment and it is time for the secularists and the civil libertarians to find the courage to say so.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1954,n,n

 

[Simon Anders]

Are atheists more likely to be politically apathetic, considering that politics is about power and authority, which atheists decry as a source of brainwashing? Are there "conservative" atheists? Atheists who believe in monarchies? Fascist atheists?

Or, considering the amount of time and effort they invest in removing religious symbols from public life (or pursuing frivolous lawsuits to do the same) are they more politically aware but less politically useful?

Do they just want to chip away at existing institutions without clear ideas of what they want in stead?

As you are regularly pointing out communists have tended to be atheists. This makes it clear atheists are quite capable of being political - in all areas of political life - and setting up and being authorities.

Of course there are fascist and conservative atheists - many of the neoconservaties are both. One fascinating way conservatives - both religious and atheistic - have gotten together was in South American politics, especially if one focuses on US/SA relations. Here those focused on money easily joined up with those focused on 'morals' to combat the 'threat' presented by people with long hair who wanted to nationalize certain industries.

Atheists are quite capable of being authoritarian. You have to go into more pagan societies to find people who are truly skeptical about centralized power. A nice example can be found in many native american groups where leaderships was always tentative. It was dependent on the support of the people and could fall apart with bad decisions. In fact this was part of their problem when fighting against the incoming Europeans. Their own distaste for centralized power made it hard for them to organize a unified defense. (of course other problems were present and important, not least smallpox etc.)

 

[S.A.M.]

So why have their contributions to a secular society (as opposed to an anti-religion movement) been next to nil?

 

[Simon Anders]

And yeah, its very secular to ask to ban religious practices.

And very religious also. There is a rich history of religious practitioners banning religious activities, often with the most complete method possible: killing those of other faiths.

 

[Simon Anders]

So why have their contributions to a secular society (as opposed to an anti-religion movement) been next to nil?

Whose? And could you clarify?

 

[spidergoat]

So-called secular humanists are mostly atheists. Religious people tend to want religious faith incorporated into national politics.

 

[S.A.M.]

And very religious also. There is a rich history of religious practitioners banning religious activities, often with the most complete method possible: killing those of other faiths.

Not in secular societies. Unless you're talking about France/Turkey where they banned the hijab, but then there again, you have a preponderance of atheists in power who did it, so its not surprising. I think atheists will jump through hoops to ban any practice of religion no matter how meaningless or symbolic. I sincerely doubt that Jews who light the menorah are celebrating the victory of blind faith over reason. But why should that stop Hitchens? I wonder what he considers his Jewish wife.

 

[CptBork]

So why have their contributions to a secular society (as opposed to an anti-religion movement) been next to nil?

What about men like Gorbachev, long-time members of the communist party, who gave Russia back all its freedoms as well as freedoms it had never enjoyed before? You think it would have been anywhere near as easy without reformists like Gorbachev in charge? Would you claim Gorbachev as a theist who defended secular society from the evil imperialist atheists?

 

[S.A.M.]

What about men like Gorbachev, long-time members of the communist party, who gave Russia back all its freedoms as well as freedoms it had never enjoyed before? You think it would have been anywhere near as easy without reformists like Gorbachev in charge? Would you claim Gorbachev as a theist who defended secular society from the evil imperialist atheists?

Maybe, would he declare it if he was a Christian?

oops! Apparently he would.

Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Communist leader of the Soviet Union, has acknowledged his Christian faith for the first time, paying a surprise visit to pray at the tomb of St Francis of Assisi.

Accompanied by his daughter Irina, Mr Gorbachev spent half an hour on his knees in silent prayer at the tomb.

His arrival in Assisi was described as "spiritual perestroika" by La Stampa, the Italian newspaper.

"St Francis is, for me, the alter Christus, the other Christ," said Mr Gorbachev. "His story fascinates me and has played a fundamental role in my life," he added.

Mr Gorbachev's surprise visit confirmed decades of rumours that, although he was forced to publicly pronounce himself an atheist, he was in fact a Christian, and casts a meeting with Pope John Paul II in 1989 in a new light.

http://deacbench.blogspot.com/2008/03/mikhail-gorbachev-christian.html

 

[Simon Anders]

Not in secular societies.

Well, of course.
But in religious societies we have a rich history of banning religions. Secular society continues this practice.

I think atheists will jump through hoops to ban any practice of religion no matter how meaningless or symbolic.

Then they are doing very poorly in many countries. If those in power in France wanted to 'ban any practice of religion' they have certainly not come very far at all. If they are in power, they are using very little of it to ban any practice of religion.

 

[S.A.M.]

Well, of course.
But in religious societies we have a rich history of banning religions. Secular society continues this practice.


Then they are doing very poorly in many countries. If those in power in France wanted to 'ban any practice of religion' they have certainly not come very far at all. If they are in power, they are using very little of it to ban any practice of religion.

You think so? Whats the public expression of religion like in France?

 

[spidergoat]

France never banned the hijab, only for children in public schools, and it was a law in support of secularism.

 

[Simon Anders]

You think so? Whats the public expression of religion like in France?

Let me help you here. How did you change wording and via that meaning between posts? Play fair, it's a sign of respect.

 

[S.A.M.]

France never banned the hijab, only for children in public schools, and it was a law in support of secularism.

They expelled several children including Sikh boys for wearing turbans, which are compulsory in their religious practice. Very secular of them.

Even the Afghanis are not anal about that.

Afghan Sikhs are again permitted to attend school to study their religion and the Hindi language. In a country that appears to be homogeneous to the outside eye, Afghanistan's people will surprise you with their varying ethnic backgrounds and traditions. - Steve McCurry

http://www2.soros.org/photogalleries/mw_gallery.php?series=/resources/events/mw9/mccurry/&id=6

 

[spidergoat]

It is actually.