Talk:State atheism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Atheism
State atheism is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
For more information and how you can help click Show →

Contents

[edit] State atheism opposes religion?

Shouldn't this be called "State irreligiosity" or something? I'd think State atheism would be the State's opposition to holding a belief in any gods, not opposition to religion (lacking religion = irreligious; lacking belief is any gods = atheism). --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If the concept was being named anew, maybe "State Atheism" might not be the chosen term. However, "State Atheism" does have an established meaning, and it is as described on the page. Sometimes the language is not as precise as we would like. Never mind, eh? --Dannyno 09:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought that was the case... oh well. --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Curious if State_religion can also be added ?. After all it is a strategy to have a state religion to persecute other religions. If State atheism is listed as a "By strategy:" then so should State_religion be listed as a strategy. Ttiotsw 19:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The difference is that every state in history which has been, and currently is, officially atheist has and does persecute religion, and violently so in every case, whereas in the case of state religion, at least modernly, there is commonly, but (granted) not always, no form of persecution at all. For example, England, Malta, Monaco, Denmark and Costa Rica all have official regligions but it cannot be said that the state religion is a strategy of persecution. State atheism by contrast is in every case a strategy of persecution. Certainly there is the speculative possibility that a day may come when an atheist state does not persecute people (Some atheists may even think it likely; I doubt it). When that day comes (and hell freezes over) edits will have to be made, but we are dealing with facts, not fantasy, and history, not some alternative history. Nonetheless, the facts are that every atheist state in history has persecuted religion. The same cannot be said for state religion.Mamalujo 20:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, come on. I didn't see this banner had been added here, and that "State Atheism" had been added to it. Even if your statement is true, though, that's not a valid argument for putting it on the banner. The question would be if reliable sources agree that state atheism is by itself a form of persecution, and then, in a way that state religion isn't. I'm pretty sure you can't make the case for either of those. If state atheism is a form of persecuion, though, then clearly state religion is another strategy. The whole concept of "strategies," by the way, is a bit silly; is there not a better word? "By method" would seem better. Mackan79 21:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
But the State religion of England does lead to discrimination (and persecution). For instance the line of succession for royalty expressly excludes Catholics and the Blasphemy laws only apply when opposing the Church of England rather than religion in general. Thus the State religion of England (Wales etc) is discriminatory and is used to persecute others. It is true that it hasn't been persecuting people recently, but it still can legally discriminate. Ttiotsw 08:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Per previous discussions, the contiued addition of these banners and categories is clearly not appropriate. These articles need to be WP:NPOV, not to reflect personal views. I fully respect the view that these regimes have been repressive, but that isn't a valid reason to add these types of categories, unless you did it for all types of government/religion interaction. I wouldn't really mind that, but I think it makes more sense not to, considering the implication that will remain on any specific page. Mackan79 19:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No USSR?

Why is there no mention of the Soviet Union in the article? Surely as they were the first Atheist state, and the most well known one there should be a lot about them. This article needs some serious work. --Hibernian 11:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The Soviet Union's aggression against religion is discussed in the article as it stands, but the note that Albania under Communist rule was the only explicitly atheist state is true, according to all sources I've read over the years. Have you any proof of the fUSSR explicitly being atheist? GeofFMorris 18:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious claim regarding "Eliminating" Sunday.

Editors are trying to claim that Marxist/Leninism Soviets eliminated "Sunday" but this doesn't reflect what happened. See the source provided where it says "The new six-day week will be unstaggered, exactly like a capitalist seven-day week, but its holiday will seldom fall on Sunday. " OK sounds clear enough but what exactly does the source mean by "the holiday will seldom fall on Sunday" if Sunday was "eliminated" ? This is what I was getting at when I said it was WP:SYNTH and WP:OR as the source doesn't say that Sunday was eliminated !. The thing is that in 1918 Lenin finally moved Soviets to the Gregorian style calendar (the Russian Orthodox Church still ran on Julian dates) away from the Julian calendar. Thus "State atheism" harmonised Soviets to the rest of the world (I would argue that it was the Russian Orthodox Church that was the stopping calendar harmonisation). Many years later the 5 day week was introduced to improve industrial efficiency though in part the side effect was to stop the Sunday holiday which, when you think about it, was introduced by Lenin indirectly when he decreed that the Soviets would adopt the Gregorian calendar. Given "Sunday" is about the Sun God (Sunne), Monday the Moon (Mona Goddess, or Luna), Tuesday for Tyr (or Mars both gods), Wednesday for Woden (God), Thursday for Thor (I like these Gods), Friday for Freyja (yup a Goddess), and Saturday for Saturn (God, again)... I think the Soviets had more problems that just "sun" worship day and so that is why I called it WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as it has nothing to do with "State atheism" and more to do with Soviet anticlericalism. Now the French really did go to town on the calendar and *that* was about atheism. Please correct it to reflect what the sources say. Ttiotsw 11:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Go back a read it again... it clearly says "In only one respect the five-day week was an unqualified success, from the Soviet point of view. It did help to make people forget Sunday" <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,930406,00.html> if Sunday was still around how could they forget it. The week ends were eliminated and staggered five day weeks implemented, this did not work so they moved to a week with out Sundays instead going to a six day week. Since a seven day week is very important in regards to religious holidays and the sabbath and the Lords day- the only real purpose for such an odd work week is to do away with those days. As the article on wikipedia even says. If you like we can correct it to say "determined atheists" as the time news article says Hardyplants 12:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Like I said and like I tagged it - the entry is dubious. You have reverted my tag straight away without discussing it. It does not say "eliminated" but it says "the holiday will seldom fall on Sunday" which reads to me (and a 3rd view I imagine) that Sunday still kind of exists except it isn't always a holiday.
The source also ways "In only one respect ..." which to me reads that "one respect" was not the primary raison d’être for the change but the industry efficiency angle is the main reason. Ttiotsw 14:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Donald Tsang

Donald Tsang is the Chief Executive of Hong Kong. He is a catholic. I think that this should be mentioned in the text. It's difficult for religious people to hold an office in the Peoples Republic of China but it's not impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.246.15.153 (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] regarding the anonymous reversion by 68.96.86.172

Hey, 68.96.86.172, it's fairly impolite or revert changes without explanation. Let me explain the rationale behind the changes which you reverted a bit.

Prior to my changes, the article said:

:*Buddhists 8%<!--0.1B/1.3B=7.7%-->, with more than 200,000 monks and nuns. This value is seen as extremely low because there are more than 16,000 Buddhist temples that do not maintain traditional congregations. :*Taoists, unknown as a percentage, there are more than 25,000 Taoist monks and nuns at more than 1,500 temples. Taoist belief is often intertwined with both Buddhism and traditional folk religions. :*Muslims, 1.5%<!--0.02B/1.3B=1.5%-->, with more than 45,000 [[Imams]]. Other estimates are much higher. :*Protestant Christians, at least 13.8%<!--0.2B-0.02B=0.18B, 0.18B/1.3B=13.8%--> with at least 20 million citizens worshiping in the more that 50,000 official churches. :*Catholics, about 1.5%<!--0.02B/1.3B=1.5%-->.

Citing this source, which said in part:

There are 5.3 million persons registered with the official Catholic Patriotic Association (CPA), and it is estimated that there are an equal or greater number who worship in unregistered Catholic churches affiliated with the Vatican. According to official sources, the government-sanctioned Catholic Patriotic Association has more than 70 bishops, almost 3,000 priests and nuns, 6,000 churches and meeting places, and 12 seminaries. There are thought to be approximately 40 bishops operating "underground," some of whom are in prison or under house arrest. A Vatican representative estimated that there are 8 to 18 million Catholics in the country

My edit which you reverted changed the article to say:

:*Buddhists 8%<!--0.1B/1.3B=7.7%-->, with more than 200,000 monks and nuns. This value is seen as extremely low because there are more than 16,000 Buddhist temples that do not maintain traditional congregations. :*Taoists, unknown as a percentage, there are more than 25,000 Taoist monks and nuns at more than 1,500 temples. Taoist belief is often intertwined with both Buddhism and traditional folk religions. :*Muslims, 1.5%<!--0.02B/1.3B=1.5%-->, with more than 45,000 [[Imams]]. Other estimates are much higher. :*Protestant Christians, at least 13.8%<!--0.2B-0.02B=0.18B, 0.18B/1.3B=13.8%--> with at least 20 million citizens worshiping in the more that 50,000 official churches. :*Catholics, about 1.5%<!--0.02B/1.3B=1.5%-->.

which I believe more correctly reflects what the cited supporting source said than the article previously did.

It is always possible that I have made an error. If I have, please point out my error. In the meantime, I have re-reverted your reversion which lacked an edit summary explaining your reasoning. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] State atheism is the official rejection of religion in all forms by a government in favor of atheism.

What are we basing this definition on? What were the sources used to come up with this idea? Angry Christian (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I poked around for a definition in an encyclopedia or dictionary, and did not find one. A good article begins with a good, well-supported definition. This article lacks that. Nick Graves (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for looking, I could not find one either. So what should our next step be? Also, when I look at this article I can't help but think we're talking about militant atheism as expressed in a communist/totalist/marxist state and that "state atheism" is a somewhat inaccurate description. All these countries have anti-religious views, does that constitute simple atheism or would militant atheism be a better descriptor? Angry Christian (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Nick Graves said: "A good article begins with a good, well-supported definition." This article begins with a concise, easily understood definition. However, Nick argues that the definition does not seem to be well supported. I poked around just a little and found this source where it is possible to infer a definition, this source which discusses that definition a bit, and this source where an author who spoke of state atheism in a book seems unable to explain what he thinks the term means. Perhaps it might work to explicity say "State atheism, for purposes of this article, is a term describing the official rejection of religion in all forms by a government in favor of atheism." -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The editorial oversight in the Infidels article probably doesn't pass muster for a reliable source, especially given the original publication date (1997)--the Infidels have more of a peer review system in place now, but I doubt this one went through that process. The blogspot post isn't usable as a source, though the book it mentions may be. I find the author's impartiality on the matter highly suspect--he considers "the refusal of Europe, at the time of the debate on the European Constitution, to include in the Constitution an acknowledgement of its Greco-Latin and Judeo-Christian origins" to be some sort of state atheism. That's wholly different from state atheism practiced in communist nations--there is no promotion or imposition of atheism in such an action (or rather, lack of action). Eastern Europe, Russia and Central Asia 2003 is more promising, though it would take some sorting through to get what we need. It's much like a lot of the articles I found in JSTOR, which mentioned state atheism, but which didn't necessarily define it or treat in any specific depth. We need to do better than "for purposes of this article, state atheism is..." It's not up to us to define the term (that would be original research), but to accurately relay what reliable sources say about it. Nick Graves (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree this is a problem with this article. I suspect there are plenty of people who do use "state atheism" in this way, but I also suspect it is a matter of POV - other people such as myself might say that the things described in this article are antitheism, and not atheism. The article also claims "State atheism should not be confused ... with state secularism" which also seems a matter of opinion - to me, a state rejecting theism is synonymous with state secularism, where as a state persecuting religious people is not state atheism. Mdwh (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Who are these people ?. I never really Googled for it before but "State atheism" seems to get Wikipedia and clones plus the odd mention e.g.[1] (which is talking about secular states (French style). It certainly is sounding like a neologism. To me the article should be renamed to State anticlericalism. Ttiotsw (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to Anti-clericalism might be better (as we already have that article, and "state anticlericalism" may be a neologism too?) On that note, this article claims "State atheism should not be confused either with anti-clericalism" - I presume the point being made is that persecuting individuals for their personal belief is not anti-clericalism. But any restriction of religious organisations in public seems to come under the definition (and indeed communism is covered, albeit briefly, in the anti-clericalism article). Mdwh (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I've got to disagree. It's a term with significant use within the discipline of political science (plenty of articles found at JSTOR), and an obvious analogue of state religion. It's a direct translation of an official Soviet policy (gosateizm) that was emulated in various other communist nations. Whether one agrees that "state atheism" is a legitimate manifestation of atheism as such is immaterial to its legitimacy as a political term referring to real policies in communist nations. The article in its current form is definitely still slanted and in great need of better sourcing, but there is enough coverage of the term in reliable sources to craft a good article under this title. I've come across a number of articles in peer reviewed journals that can be used to put this article on more solid footing, and intend to make improvements as I have time. Nick Graves (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Destroy old world.jpg

The image Image:Destroy old world.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)