The Subject of Communism/Atheism: A Respectful Dialogue

Back in February of 2009 I emailed one Michael Caputo, author of the MILITANT ATHEISM EXPOSED blog (http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/), about an article he wrote attempting to show how atheism was the cause of Communism and how atheism will lead to immorality, etc.

I wanted to correct a few of his errors and we ended up having a short dialogue and I wanted to share it because I think I did a very good job arguing against his claims and did a good job explaining why the propaganda about Communism and "The New Atheism" are incorrect.

In my last email to Mr. Caputo I asked him if I could post our discussion because I thought he was very nice guy and after dealing with several rude theists the last several months Mr. Caputo's and I's discussion was a nice change of pace. I never received a reply from him so I'm hoping he won't mind my posting this, but I don't see why he would.

I hope this exchange can inspire others to be civil (as long as the other person is civil in return. I see no problem fighting fire with fire so to speak as can be seen on my blog) and respectful (when your adversary earns it).

My comments will be in bold, while Mr. Caputo's will be in regular and italic font.

Note: It appears that I may not have kept all the emails. I think I might have deleted one or two because posting it was a last minute thought so if it seems that the emails skip around a bit that might be why. I hope it's pretty easy to follow. I did my best to make it as easy to understand as possible.



Here is my first email to Mr. Caputo:

I found your article titled "THE CRIMES AND EVILS OF ATHEISM" and I thought I'd point out a few of your errors.

You claim:

"1. Communists leaders were motivated by a strong desire to impose an ideological "package" over the whole world. The package included the eradication of religion, defined by arch-atheist, Karl Marx, as “The opium of the people.” According to Marx, religion helped keep the masses passive before the abuse of the wealthy and powerful, and the only way to free them from the “stupor," God and religion had to be eradicated. The enforcement of Atheism was a “critical” requirement for Communism’s success, and thus it had to be implemented at all costs. This meant oppressive measures, such as brainwashing, the closing of houses of worship and abolishing the priesthood."

At all costs? Really? If that was their main goal, why did Stalin give orders to open churches, and give financial aid to "pro-soviet" churches (Source: Hector Avalos' "Fighting Words" page 330).

Yes, this "ideological "package"" was Marxism, the abolishment of private property, and all classes, and bring about socialism. This has nothing to do with atheism. Yes, Marx's philosophy was atheistic, but there are christian communists too, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's "What is Property?" was very influential on Marx, and where did Proudhon get his ideas about the abolition of property from? The bible:

“My real masters, those who have caused fertile ideas to spring up in my mind, are three in number: FIRST, THE BIBLE; next, Adam Smith; and last, Hegel.” (emphasis mine) [Source: http://www.makingmyway.org/?p=36]

Again you claim:

"2. Karl Marx’s extremist followers were not in any way impeded in their blood-thirsty global quest by fear of a Higher Power. Atheism took very efficient care of this “limiting factor.” Since the end justified the means, as Machiavelli had instructed, they could do whatever was necessary to bring about a workers’ paradise. Because the opposition in some cases proved to be powerful and resilient, drastic means were used and tens of millions were mercilessly butchered. Large numbers were killed for refusing to abandon their religious beliefs."

Once again, you have failed to show how atheism is the cause. In this argument you clearly fail to identify the reason of the persecution. It had nothing to do with their being atheists. I had discussed this issue with the author of the MakingMyWay.org article I cited above and he agreed with me that it was the communist ideology which was the reason for the forced expulsion of religion. To Marxists, religion is a byproduct of capitalism, which according to Marxist doctrine should be abolished, and therefore, so should religion.

It also was not just religious individuals who were targeted either. Even other communists suffered and were murdered, all for the sake of their ideology and/or attempts at gaining more power by Stalin.

Even Lenin's views on religion weren't as drastic as you make it seem since he said:

"We must not only admit workers who preserve their belief in God into the Social-Democratic Party, but must deliberately set out to recruit them; we are absolutely opposed to giving the slightest offence to their religious convictions, but we recruit them in order to educate them in the spirit of our programme, and not in order to permit an active struggle against it." (http://www..marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm)

"3. Communist-atheist leaders, in their own eyes, became supreme, all-knowing, all-wise and all powerful "gods.." They had total control over people’s lives and over who lived and who died. Being "god," they asserted their evil schemes over the masses with brutality and mercilessness."

What does this have to do with atheism?

Finally you say:

"Atheism, therefore, was a major factor in the murder of countless millions, during the past century. Unfortunately, atheism is still alive and well and a segment of it, known as "militant atheism," is still driven by some of the same extremist views reminiscent of atheist-communist regimes of old. They, like their predecessors, do not hesitate to admit that they hate God, religion and that they would like to see both disappear forever. Furthermore, they are driven by a hatred for the unborn, and a blind support for common-law living, sexual immorality, euthanasia, etc. The understandable concern of many is that a propagation of their philosophy of meaninglessness and their blind allegiance to atheistic evolution would lead, in the long run, to a return to a cold-hearted and dangerous devaluing of the weak and the needy in society; though they "assure" us that that is not part of their agenda. We believe that their cold-heartiness toward millions of unborn babies, and their total support of euthanasia indicates otherwise."

A major factor? Hmmm, we must have been reading a different article. You failed to give one shred of proof that it was their lack of belief in a god that caused these horrors. Yes, these individuals were atheists, but their being atheists is no proof of what caused their actions.

You say,

"They, like their predecessors, do not hesitate to admit that they hate God, religion and that they would like to see both disappear forever."

Is that so? If that's the case, then why did David Aikman, the author of the book "The Delusion of Disbelief" quote two of these 'militant atheists' who you claim wishes for religion to 'disappear forever,' state directly that they would never wish to abolish religion?

On page 30 Aikman quotes Christopher Hitchens:

"I would not prohibit it [meaning religion] even if I thought I could."

On page 32 he says this of Sam Harris:

"Harris does not advocate explicit suppression of religious faith, but rather seeks what he calls 'conversational intolerance.'"

None of the "new atheists" wish to abolish religion by force, or murder believers. As I've shown, your claims are highly dubious and you clearly didn't do your homework before writing that piece of propaganda. Obviously this evidence I've given won't make you change your mind (at least I highly doubt it) but the fact remains that not one single individual has ever shown how atheism was the cause of these disasters... On the contrary, it was the communist ideology itself, in which atheism isn't even a major, or even necessary, part.

Thanks for your time.

Ken

a.k.a. "Arizona Atheist"


Mr. Caputo's reply:

KEN SEE COMMENTS IN RED.

At all costs? Really? If that was their main goal, why did Stalin give orders to open churches, and give financial aid to "pro-soviet" churches (Source: Hector Avalos' "Fighting Words" page 330).

THIS HAPPENED DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR AS A MOVE OF CONVENIENCE. Steven Merritt Miner in his work Stalin's Holy War argues that Stalin had ulterior motives behind the move.

"Moscow's religious policy at this time can only be understood in the context of Soviet security considerations, especially Moscow's concerns about the disaffection of non-Russian nationalities. The Kremlin saw the church not only, and perhaps not even primarily, as a tool for mobilizing and harnessing Russian nationalism throughout the union, but rather as one of several instruments for countering and disarming non-Russian, and anti-Soviet, nationalism. As most tsars could have told Stalin, the Russian Orthodox Church was an effective agent for the Russification of the ethnically diverse and contentious western regions." Merritt Miner, Steven, Stalin's Holy War. The university of North Carolina Press, 2002. (23 October, 2009).

Yes, this "ideological "package"" was Marxism, the abolishment of private property, and all classes, and bring about socialism. This has nothing to do with atheism. Yes, Marx's philosophy was atheistic, but there are christian communists too, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's "What is Property?" was very influential on Marx, and where did Proudhon get his ideas about the abolition of property from? The bible:

ONE CAN BE "SOCIALISTIC" AND BE A CHRISTIAN, BUT NOT COMMUNISTIC SINCE IT TAKES US BACK TO MARX -- THUS ATHEISM ENTERS IN.

“My real masters, those who have caused fertile ideas to spring up in my mind, are three in number: FIRST, THE BIBLE; next, Adam Smith; and last, Hegel.” (emphasis mine) [Source: http://www.makingmyway.org/?p=36]

THE BIBLE TEACHES LOOKING AFTER THE NEEDY, BUT "IT DOES NOT TEACH THE ABOLISHMENT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Once again, you have failed to show how atheism is the cause. In this argument you clearly fail to identify the reason of the persecution. It had nothing to do with their being atheists. I had discussed this issue with the author of the MakingMyWay.org article I cited above and he agreed with me that it was the communist ideology which was the reason for the forced expulsion of religion. To Marxists, religion is a byproduct of capitalism, which according to Marxist doctrine should be abolished, and therefore, so should religion.

THE MARXIST IDEOLOGY IS FRAMED BY ATHEISM. HOW CAN YOU SEPARATE THE TWO? I AM CONFUSED.

It also was not just religious individuals who were targeted either. Even other communists suffered and were murdered, all for the sake of their ideology and/or attempts at gaining more power by Stalin.

I FAIL TO SEE THE RELEVANCE OF THIS. THE "MILITANT" ATHEISTS WERE CLEARLY VOID OF CONSCIENCE AND BRUTALLY KILLED ANY OPPOSITION.

Even Lenin's views on religion weren't as drastic as you make it seem since he said:

PLEASE RE-READ THE SECTIONS IN RED BELOW [I have placed the below text of my comment in italics & regular font that he originally placed in red]

"We must not only admit workers who preserve their belief in God into the Social-Democratic Party, but must deliberately set out to recruit them; we are absolutely opposed to giving the slightest offence to their religious convictions, but we recruit them in order to educate them in the spirit of our programme, and not in order to permit an active struggle against it." (http://www..marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm)

AND WHEN THEY FAILED TO GO ALONG? YOU KNOW FULL WELL WHAT HHAPPENED.

What does this have to do with atheism?

MUCH. IN TAKING GOD'S PLACE, THEY BECAME RULERS OVER LIFE OR DEATH -- AND THEY EXERCISED THIS POWER ALL TOO FEROCIOUSLY.

A major factor? Hmmm, we must have been reading a different article. You failed to give one shred of proof that it was their lack of belief in a god that caused these horrors. Yes, these individuals were atheists, but their being atheists is no proof of what caused their actions.

IF ATHEISM WAS ONE "ESSENTIALITY" TO ESTABLISHING HEAVEN ON EARTH, IT BECAME A CRITICAL NECESSITY TO ASSERT THE PHILOSOPHY "BY FORCE," IF NECESSARY. THE LINK IS GRARINGLY OBVIOUS.

None of the "new atheists" wish to abolish religion by force, or murder believers. As I've shown, your claims are highly dubious and you clearly didn't do your homework before writing that piece of propaganda. Obviously this evidence I've given won't make you change your mind (at least I highly doubt it) but the fact remains that not one single individual has ever shown how atheism was the cause of these disasters... On the contrary, it was the communist ideology itself, in which atheism isn't even a major, or even necessary, part.

LISTEN TO WHAT AN AVOWED ATHEIST HAS TO SAY ABOUT MILITANT ATHEISM.

Although …atheism I not necessarily hostile to religion, there are, of course some atheists who are hostile to religion, and not just fundamentalist religions….Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious beliefs. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that it is usually or always harmful. Baggini, Julian, Atheism a Very Short Introduction. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 101.



I HOPE THIS HELPS.

ALSO, PLEASE REMEMBER THAT MY SITE OPPOSES "MILITANT ATHEISM." THERE ARE LOTS OF ATHEISTS WHO ARE A DIFFERENT BREED. YOU MAY BE ONE OF THEM. UNFORTUNATELY WHEN PEOPLE BECOME FANATICAL AND HATEFUL (THIS APPLIES TO FANATICAL RELIGIONISTS AS WELL) ALL THEY NEED IS POWER AND AGGRESSION WILL FOLLOW.

ALL THE BEST.


My reply to Mr.Caputo:

"THIS HAPPENED DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR AS A MOVE OF CONVENIENCE. Steven Merritt Miner in his work Stalin's Holy War argues that Stalin had ulterior motives behind the move.

Yes, there were some alterer motives, but my point was if it was truly atheism, and that was their goal to destroy religion, as you had claimed, one would think that would be number one on their list and they wouldn't have supported the church. I think this is actually evidence for my case in that it was not their lack of belief, but their communist ideology; they wanted to use the church for their own ends towards their socialist dream.

"THE BIBLE TEACHES LOOKING AFTER THE NEEDY, BUT "IT DOES NOT TEACH THE ABOLISHMENT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY"

I'm not sure which verses Proudhon used, but he got the idea from the bible. But the fact of the matter is that the bible does condone socialism. Two verses are Exodus 16:16-18 and Acts 2:44-45.

"THE MARXIST IDEOLOGY IS FRAMED BY ATHEISM.. HOW CAN YOU SEPARATE THE TWO? I AM CONFUSED."

Well, as I said before Marx's ideology was atheistic, but you haven't shown that it was the lack of belief which inspired their actions. It was the belief in the class struggle and the abolition of private property which was the foundation of his thought. Though, as you said afterwards:

"MUCH. IN TAKING GOD'S PLACE, THEY BECAME RULERS OVER LIFE OR DEATH -- AND THEY EXERCISED THIS POWER ALL TOO FEROCIOUSLY."

Well, I don't see what's so damaging about this. Obviously you and other believers see god as a brute fact but this isn't the case. I have not come across one single argument that is not an argument from ignorance, or a misunderstanding of science.

Because there is no god man is the only rule maker and that's that. The fact of the matter is that the communists believed in their socialist ideology and believed that no action should inhibit that dream of theirs of socialism.

To quote Robert from the blog I cited before:

"An important component of communist practice is the belief that the morality of an action is determined solely by whether it advances the cause of the proletarian revolution. In other words, “the ends justify the means” when the end is the supremacy of the working class. While Marx and Engels occasionally spoke of “independent morality based on human dignity,” later communist theorists like Leon Trotsky dismissed this view. As Nicholas Churchich writes in Marxism and Morality, “For Trotsky…deceit, violence and murder, if they serve the proletarian political ends are perfectly ‘moral’ and should be employed without hesitation.” Communists like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot followed this ethic unwaveringly."

Their goal was to gain that classless society and that was their motivation, not their lack of belief, and this quote shows just how dogmatic they were in wishing to achieve their goals.

"IF ATHEISM WAS ONE "ESSENTIALITY" TO ESTABLISHING HEAVEN ON EARTH, IT BECAME A CRITICAL NECESSITY TO ASSERT THE PHILOSOPHY "BY FORCE," IF NECESSARY. THE LINK IS GRARINGLY OBVIOUS."

Again, it was their unwavering belief that socialism was just around the corner and felt that any action is justified in achieving that goal. This concept is completely divorced from atheism. The "heaven on earth" was their utopia, their abolishment of private property. Once that was achieved, their goal was complete. Capitalism was seen as evil and religion was seen as a byproduct of capitalism, therefore, it was their ideology, not atheism, which influenced their actions. But, because the pesants didn't want to give up their land they took it from them. Because they didn't give up their religion, they initiated anti-religious campains in order to get rid of one of the results of that "evil" capitalism.

I agree, these individuals were atheists, but how does atheism cause someone to act as they acted. It cannot, and as I've said already it was the communist ideology.

I certainly agree about fanatics and a hatred that can occur in them, but the question remains, how does atheism influence someone if it is a negative? It has no belief or ideology on its own, so if someone were going to become hateful towards believers I'd say it wouldn't be because of someone's lack of belief, but some other source.


Mr. Caputo's reply:

Greetings again.

I appreciate our exchange simply because it's void of offensive language which other atheists unfortunately abound in. (Some religionists are just as bad.)


Well, one must define just what communism is. It's not a purely atheistic ideology. Marx's version was, but communism itself is not inherently atheistic.

HAVE WE NOT BEEN DEALING WITH MARXISM ALL ALONG? WAS MARX NOT VEHEMENT AGAINST RELIGION? DID HIS FANATICAL FOLLOWERS NOT ABSORB THAT SPIRIT? DID NOT MARX WANT THE SUPPRESSION OF RELIGION? WERE NOT THE LEADERS IN VARIOUS COMMUNIST COUNTRIES IMBUED WITH MARX'S SPIRIT? STALIN WAS AN OPPORTUNIST. HE WAS EVEN WILLING TO TEMPORARILY USE THE ORTHODOX CHURCH TO REGAIN CONTROL DURING A CRISIS PERIOD. PERHAPS HE BECAME SOFTER IN HIS OLD AGE, BUT I SUSPECT THAT THE MOVE WAS STRICTLY UTILITARIAN, GIVEN THE EVILS HE HAD COMMITTED ALL ALONG. I CAME ACROSS AN INTERESTING QUOTE ABOUT MARXISM-LENINISM WHICH TO ME IS QUITE ENLIGHTENING.


Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class. (Lenin, V. I.. "About the attitude of the working party toward the religion.". Collected works, v. 17, p.41. Retrieved on 2006-09-09.
Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated for the suppression, and, ultimately, the disappearance of religious beliefs, due to their unscientific and superstitious character. In the 1920s and 1930s, such organizations as the League of the Militant Godless were active in anti-religious propaganda. Atheism was the norm in schools, communist organizations (such as the Young Pioneer Organization), and the media."
Religion in the Soviet Union, Wikipedia. (23 October, 2009).

I'm not sure which verses Proudhon used, but he got the idea from the bible. But the fact of the matter is that the bible does condone socialism. Two verses are Exodus 16:16-18 and Acts 2:44-45.

THE BIBLE IS HEAVILY SOCIALISTIC, BUT IT ALSO TAKES PRECAUTIONS AGAINST ABUSE. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT EVEN THE POOR HAD TO GO GATHER THE GRAIN, THOUGH IT CAME FROM SECTIONS OF FIELDS THAT BELONGED TO OTHERS. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT WELFARE WAS CLEARLY PRACTICED BUT SEVERAL REQUIREMENTS WERE TO BE SATISFIED BEFORE ASISTANCE WOULD BE GIVEN.

Well, as I said before Marx's ideology was atheistic, but you haven't shown that it was the lack of belief which inspired their actions. It was the belief in the class struggle and the abolition of private property which was the foundation of his thought. Though, as you said afterwards:

"MUCH. IN TAKING GOD'S PLACE, THEY BECAME RULERS OVER LIFE OR DEATH -- AND THEY EXERCISED THIS POWER ALL TOO FEROCIOUSLY."

Well, I don't see what's so damaging about this. Obviously you and other believers see god as a brute fact but this isn't the case. I have not come across one single argument that is not an argument from ignorance, or a misunderstanding of science.

THIS IS THE CRUX. MY POINT IS THAT ATHEISM WAS A PILLAR OF MARXISM. ATHEISM LEAVES ETHICS IN THE HANDS OF EACH BELIEVER. IT FREED THE LEADERS TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WHAT WAS APPROPRIATE AND JUST; WHAT WAS RIGHT AND WHAT WAS WRONG.
IT LEFT THE LEADERS IN THE HANDS OF A NOTION WHICH HAS THE POTENTIAL OF CAUSING HAVOCK WHEN IMPLEMENTED: "THE ENDS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS."
ATHEISM, THEREFORE, IS CLEALY A FACTOR. THAT IS A WORRISOME PROBLEM WITH ATHEISM. "YOU" MAY CHOOSE ETHICS THAT ARE DECENT, OTHERS MAY DECIDE THAT HE/SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO YOUR PROPERTY OR TO YOUR CHILD AND MAY EVEN RATIONALIZE HIS ACTIONS -- OR NOT EVEN BOTHER TO.

"TRUE" CHRISTIANITY IS BASED ON LOVE FOR GOD AND LOVING ONE'S NEIGHBOUR AS ONESELF. IF THESE TWO PRINCIPLES HAD BEEN PRESENT AND APPLIED IN THE PAST, AS GOD DEMANDS, THE MASS MURDER OF MILLIONS WOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED. (INCIDENTALLY, WHEN RELIGION APPLIES THE FIRST PRINCIPLE FANATICALLY AND IGNORES THE SECOND ALL HELL BREAKS LOSE AS WELL.)

Their goal was to gain that classless society and that was their motivation, not their lack of belief, and this quote shows just how dogmatic they were in wishing to achieve their goals.

THEIR GOAL WAS A CLASSLESS SOCIETY FREE FROM ANY "MYTHICAL" BELIEF IN GOD AND FREE FROM RELIGIOUS BELIEFS WHICH WERE "ILLOGICAL." IF THEY HAD "NOT" BEEN ATHEISTS THEY WOULD HAVE "SIMPLY" TRIED TO ESTABLISH A CLASSLESS SOCIETY WITHOUT BOTHERING BELIEVERS, DON'T YOU THINK?

Again, it was their unwavering belief that socialism was just around the corner and felt that any action is justified in achieving that goal. This concept is completely divorced from atheism. The "heaven on earth" was their utopia, their abolishment of private property. Once that was achieved, their goal was complete. Capitalism was seen as evil and religion was seen as a byproduct of capitalism, therefore, it was their ideology, not atheism, which influenced their actions. But, because the pesants didn't want to give up their land they took it from them. Because they didn't give up their religion, they initiated anti-religious campains in order to get rid of one of the results of that "evil" capitalism.

COMMUNISM WAS ALSO BASED ON DARWINIAN EVOLUTION WHICH SOME SAW AS THE FINAL NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF GOD AND RELIGION. WHAT THEY FAILED TO KEEP IN MIND IS THE FACT THAT DARWIN OPENLY WROTE THAT HE NEVER ACCEPTED ATHEISM. (See "Secrets" on my site for evidence)

I agree, these individuals were atheists, but how does atheism cause someone to act as they acted. It cannot, and as I've said already it was the communist ideology.

AGAIN, THE MOMENT YOU DIVEST YOURSELF OF JUDEO-CHRISTIAN MORALITY WHAT IS LEFT IS YOUR OWN SUBJECTIVE, FLEXIBLE, HUMAN NATURE- INFLUENCED ETHICAL SYSTEM WHICH CAN EASILY BE INFLUENCED BY YOUR OWN SELFISH NATURE (THE ID) AND FALLACIOUS REASONINGS. THIS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM.

I certainly agree about fanatics and a hatred that can occur in them, but the question remains, how does atheism influence someone if it is a negative? It has no belief or ideology on its own, so if someone were going to become hateful towards believers I'd say it wouldn't be because of someone's lack of belief, but some other source.

ATHEISM HAS BECOME AN IDEOLOGY. IT HAS "UNBELIEF" AS ITS TEMPLE AND RADICAL FEMINISM, RADICAL HOMOSEXUALITY, ABORTION ON DEMAND, EUTHANASIA, ETC. AS ITS PILLARS. ECONOMICALLY ITS MEMBERS HAVE TO FIGHT IT OUT AS SOME ARE SOCIALISTIC WHILE OTHERS ARE EXTREME CAPITALISTS (AYN RAND). IT IS BEING PUSHED AS SUCH AND IT IS BECOMING EXTREME IN THE HANDS OF FANATICS. THE ONLY THING THAT IS MISSING IS POWER AND THE REST WILL FOLLOW.
I HOPE FOR YOUR AND MY GOOD THAT NEITHER EXTREME ATHEISTS NOR EXTREME RELIGIONISTS WILL HAVE THEIR WAY IN THE FUTURE.

ALL THE BEST.
Mike


My reply:


Hi Mike,

I hope that is your name. I think I saw you sign off with it in the last post.

Yes, the language of most of the theists I've debated lately has been very annoying and frustrating to say the least. While your language is not harsh, to be honest like most other theists I've discussed this issue with, you seem to latch on to the fact that these communists were atheists, and that Marxism was bound up with atheism and that's the foundation of your case (other than man becoming the source of morality as I'll get to later).

As I said before, the sole concept of Marxism is the abolition of property, and the forcing of socialism upon a populace that did not want it. Also, the attempts at religious suppression were, once again, due to the fact that Marx felt religion was due to man's conditions, which he felt could be solved and bettered through socialism. With mans' lives bettered he thought that religion would just fade away and not needed anymore; there would be no need of outright suppression. I've also read that Marx didn't even advocate the suppression of religious individuals.

I notice that you quoted Julian Baggini. He has this to say about it:

"Soviet communism...is a distortion of original Marxist communism, which did not advocate the oppression of the religious."

- Atheism: A Very Short Introduction, page 87

Also in the The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief, edited by Tom Flynn:

Marxism's positions on religion was that "the state should regard each person's religion as a 'private matter,' and not discriminate on grounds of religious practice or affiliation." Also, "with the coming of socialism, but not before, religion will spontaneously disappear" - page 520

Marx felt that "religion is a symptom of inadequacy in the human condition and can therefore ultimately only be exorcized by changing the actual human condition through Communist revolution" - page 523

This is what the quote of Marx's was referring to when he said that "Religion is the opium of the people." It's their "drug" so to speak to allow them to get through their daily existence in the life they now have. Through socialism their life would change for the better and this "drug" would no longer be needed. It would just disappear.

So, no I wouldn't say at all that Marx wished for the active suppression of religion. As I said, the suppression of religion by Lenin and Stalin were due to the fact that the people were not giving up their religion, nor their land or crops, etc. so the communist leaders took them all by force. This was all in their attempts to force socialism upon the population. The fact that they helped the church, as I mentioned before, also seems suspect if their goal was total religious suppression. They did tolerate some religion at various times; even sided with churches as long as they backed the communist objective.

"THIS IS THE CRUX. MY POINT IS THAT ATHEISM WAS A PILLAR OF MARXISM. ATHEISM LEAVES ETHICS IN THE HANDS OF EACH BELIEVER. IT FREED THE LEADERS TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WHAT WAS APPROPRIATE AND JUST; WHAT WAS RIGHT AND WHAT WAS WRONG.
IT LEFT THE LEADERS IN THE HANDS OF A NOTION WHICH HAS THE POTENTIAL OF CAUSING HAVOCK WHEN IMPLEMENTED: "THE ENDS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS."
ATHEISM, THEREFORE, IS CLEALY A FACTOR. THAT IS A WORRISOME PROBLEM WITH ATHEISM. "YOU" MAY CHOOSE ETHICS THAT ARE DECENT, OTHERS MAY DECIDE THAT HE/SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO YOUR PROPERTY OR TO YOUR CHILD AND MAY EVEN RATIONALIZE HIS ACTIONS -- OR NOT EVEN BOTHER TO.

"TRUE" CHRISTIANITY IS BASED ON LOVE FOR GOD AND LOVING ONE'S NEIGHBOUR AS ONESELF. IF THESE TWO PRINCIPLES HAD BEEN PRESENT AND APPLIED IN THE PAST, AS GOD DEMANDS, THE MASS MURDER OF MILLIONS WOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED. (INCIDENTALLY, WHEN RELIGION APPLIES THE FIRST PRINCIPLE FANATICALLY AND IGNORES THE SECOND ALL HELL BREAKS LOSE AS WELL.)"

You also say:

"AGAIN, THE MOMENT YOU DIVEST YOURSELF OF JUDEO-CHRISTIAN MORALITY WHAT IS LEFT IS YOUR OWN SUBJECTIVE, FLEXIBLE, HUMAN NATURE- INFLUENCED ETHICAL SYSTEM WHICH CAN EASILY BE INFLUENCED BY YOUR OWN SELFISH NATURE (THE ID) AND FALLACIOUS REASONINGS. THIS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM."

This might be a convincing argument if it weren't for the several European counties, Japan, etc. It is true there have never been (to my knowledge) any full-scale atheistic countries (even Russia wasn't fully atheistic due to the fact that many believers just kept quit about their beliefs) but there are some very secular and highly irreligious ones to compare to and they are not suffering from the social breakdowns we would expect if the atrocities of the soviet union was truly due to atheism/lack of religious beliefs.

Such places as Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom, according to a 2005 united nations human development report, are the most healthy, according to life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality (Source: Letter to a Christian Nation, by Sam Harris, page 43).

The sociologist Phil Zuckerman's research also confirms these facts:

"If this often-touted religious theory were correct - that turning away from god is at the root of all societal ills - then we would expect to find the least religious nations on earth to be bastions of crime, poverty and disease and most religious countries to be models of societal health."

"A comparison of highly irreligious countries with highly religious countries, however, reveals a very different state of affairs. In reality, the most secular countries - those with the highest proportion of atheists and agnostics - are among the most stable, peaceful, free, wealthy, and healthy societies. And the most religious nations - wherein worship of god is in abundance - are among the most unstable, violent, oppressive, poor and destitute" (Zuckerman, 2006) (Source: 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a god, by Guy P. Harrison, page 296).

"THEIR GOAL WAS A CLASSLESS SOCIETY FREE FROM ANY "MYTHICAL" BELIEF IN GOD AND FREE FROM RELIGIOUS BELIEFS WHICH WERE "ILLOGICAL." IF THEY HAD "NOT" BEEN ATHEISTS THEY WOULD HAVE "SIMPLY" TRIED TO ESTABLISH A CLASSLESS SOCIETY WITHOUT BOTHERING BELIEVERS, DON'T YOU THINK?"

Perhaps, if a reason could not be found within Marx's belief that could account for this, but from the facts I gave before, it wasn't a lack of belief which lead Marx to think religion should be left behind, but the fact that religion was a byproduct of capitalism, which is totally opposed to communism, which is why Marx felt it had to end. It was Marx's own ideology, not his atheism.

Another thing is the fact that atheism is not necessarily anti religious. Some atheists can be anti religious, but it's not caused by their atheism, but possibly the past harm it's done or some other reason.

I don't agree with your overall premise but I certainly agree with this:

"I HOPE FOR YOUR AND MY GOOD THAT NEITHER EXTREME ATHEISTS NOR EXTREME RELIGIONISTS WILL HAVE THEIR WAY IN THE FUTURE."

You also say:

"ATHEISM HAS BECOME AN IDEOLOGY. IT HAS "UNBELIEF" AS ITS TEMPLE AND RADICAL FEMINISM, RADICAL HOMOSEXUALITY, ABORTION ON DEMAND, EUTHANASIA, ETC. AS ITS PILLARS."

I don't see what unbelief has to do with these subjects. I'm sure even some very liberal christians would accept some of these so I don't think there is any evidence to support that a lack of belief is the cause.

I suppose to sum up my case I'll leave you with the following.

First, because atheism is a negative, it's never been demonstrated how being an atheist can lead to atrocities; there are no beliefs or ideology that come along with it. Just a lack of belief in a god/s. Someone can be anti religious and be an atheist but there is no evidence that these are one and the same, or that atheism leads to anti- religiosity. As you say, it is possible for a group to become very anti atheist or very anti religious and there is a danger there, but as I quoted Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, these "new atheists" are not out to ban religion or deny religious believers their right to believe and worship. I don't think there is anything to fear, unless some just don't like to listen to their arguments because they might stop believing. But speaking and writing about why religion is false is in no way a forceful removal of religion or suppression, so I don't see how this "new atheist" movement is such a danger. Such a danger could possibly take place in the future with a different group, but I see no danger in these "new atheists."

Second, there was an ideology which was developed and followed: Marx's communism, which required the abolition of property and the coming of socialism. These changes were resisted by the people so the communists took charge and forced the collectivization and the closing of religious schools, again in an attempt to remove that byproduct of capitalism, to speed up the coming of socialism.

Third, with the evidence showing how some of the most irreligious and secular counties on earth are not plagued by the problems of the soviet union it's been proven that secularism and a large majority that lack belief will not cause any social problems.

This leads to the very logical conclusion that it wasn't a lack of belief but the communists' ideology and their attempts at socialism, and that there can be widespread moral values despite a lack of religion.

Hope you had a nice weekend. I'm sure I'll hear from you soon.


Ken

a.k.a. "Arizona Atheist"


Mr. Caputo's reply:

Hello, Ken,
Yes, you were partially right. Here I am again but not as soon as expected.

I want to address the following:

"Such places as Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom, according to a 2005 united nations human development report, are the most healthy, according to life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality (Source: Letter to a Christian Nation, by Sam Harris, page 43)."

THESE ARE SOCIOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS THAT HAVE A MULTITUDE OF CAUSES. THESE ARE WEALTHY NATIONS THAT CAN AFFORD MORE SOCIAL PROGRAMS THAN OTHERS. IT MAY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION. ANY TYPE OF SOCIOLOGICAL CORRELATION IS OFTEN FROUGHT WITH BIAS. THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS THAT NEED TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, SUCH AS ALCOHOLISM, DRUG ABUSE AND SUICIDE FOR INSTANCE. ALSO ONE NEEDS TO ADDRESS IF CRIME RATES HAVE BEEN IMPROVING OR DETERIORATING AS THE SOCIETY BECOMES MORE SECULAR.

BOTH GREGORY AND ZUCKERMAN OFFER UNSUBSTANTIATED CONCLUSIONS. YOU AND I KNOW THAT WEALTHY SOCIETIES TEND TO MOVE AWAY FROM RELIGION, WHILE POOR SOCIETIES MOVE TOWARD RELIGION FOR COMFORT. THE CORRELATION IS THUS "INVERSE." RELIGION DOES NOT CAUSE POVERTY NOR IRRELIGION A BETTER SOCIAL SAFETY NET.

THE BEST EXAMPLE OF RISKY CORRELATIONS IS THE MUCH TOUTED STUDY BY GREGORY WHO CONCLUDED THAT UNBELIEF IS BETTER FOR SOCIETIES AND OFFERED "AMPLE" (?) EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT.

I RECENTLY WROTE AN ARTICLE TO SHOW HIS ERRONEOUS REASONING WHICH YOU MIGHT FIND USEFUL.
Are Secular Societies Really Better Off?

AS FOR YOUR SOURCE WHICH INFORMS US THAT HARRIS AND HITCHENS DO NOT WANT THE DISAPPEARANCE OF RELIGION, I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO WATCH THE FOLLOWING BRIEF VIDEO OF HITCHEN'S SPEECH. HARRIS IN MY VIEW, BASED ON WHAT I HAVE SEEN OR READ, IS NOT ANY DIFFERENT.
YouTube - Christopher Hitchens -- Religion [NOTE: The cited video can currently be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY8fjFKAC5k - This was Hitchens' November 2006 talk on free speech in Canada]

HERE YOU WILL HEAR HITCHEN SAY UNABASHEDLY THAT "RELIGION SHOULD BE TREATED WITH RIDICULE, HATRED AND CONTEMPT." DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT SUCH A PERSON WANTS RELIGION AROUND?

I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR WELL REASONED CONTRIBUTIONS. THANKS TO THEM I WILL BE "MORE" CAREFUL TO STRESS THAT THE PROBLEM IS "MILITANT" ATHEISM AND NOT "MODERATE" ATHEISM. WHAT WE HAVE IN UNBELIEF IS A REALITY EQUIVALENT TO THE RELIGIOUS REALITY. EXTREMISM IS A NIGHTMARE NO MATTER HOW IT MANIFESTS ITSELF. I WISH ATHEIST LEADERS WOULD FINALLY FOCUS ON THIS PROBLEM RATHER THAN PUTTING ALL MANIFESTATIONS OF RELIGION IN THE SAME PACKAGE. IN THIS I WOULD SUPPORT THEM, FOR WE REASONABLE PEOPLE KNOW THAT ONLY EVIL CAN COME OUT OF INTOLERANCE AND EXTREMISM.

HAVE A GREAT WEEK.
MIKE


My reply:


Hi Mike,

Thanks for your reply.

I hope you're doing well. Having said that I suppose I'll jump right into what I view as errors in your arguments.

You said partially:

THESE ARE SOCIOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS THAT HAVE A MULTITUDE OF CAUSES. THESE ARE WEALTHY NATIONS THAT CAN AFFORD MORE SOCIAL PROGRAMS THAN OTHERS. IT MAY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION."

You are right that many atheists jump the gun and like to claim that these studies are proof that atheism is good for a society and religion bad, but I don't make that mistake, and you're correct in pointing out that error many make. I simply use that data to show that despite there being a tremendous lack of belief in god and formal religion in those countries, there is no social decay taking place at all. In many ways they do very well, and I think in some ways, better than highly religious countries. I believe part of that is due to the social programs that are available in Europe, but again, my point is still intact. Religion is not needed for a peaceful society and you haven't refuted my point, though again, you are correct that many jump to conclusions and I wish people wouldn't do that.

On to your other claim...

"AS FOR YOUR SOURCE WHICH INFORMS US THAT HARRIS AND HITCHENS DO NOT WANT THE DISAPPEARANCE OF RELIGION, I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO WATCH THE FOLLOWING BRIEF VIDEO OF HITCHEN'S SPEECH. HARRIS IN MY VIEW, BASED ON WHAT I HAVE SEEN OR READ, IS NOT ANY DIFFERENT."

"HERE YOU WILL HEAR HITCHEN SAY UNABASHEDLY THAT "RELIGION SHOULD BE TREATED WITH RIDICULE, HATRED AND CONTEMPT." DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT SUCH A PERSON WANTS RELIGION AROUND?"

As I said in my last email:

"As you say, it is possible for a group to become very anti atheist or very anti religious and there is a danger there, but as I quoted Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, these 'new atheists' are not out to ban religion or deny religious believers their right to believe and worship. I don't think there is anything to fear, unless some just don't like to listen to their arguments because they might stop believing. But speaking and writing about why religion is false is in no way a forceful removal of religion or suppression, so I don't see how this 'new atheist' movement is such a danger. Such a danger could possibly take place in the future with a different group, but I see no danger in these 'new atheists.'"

You seem to be confusing the "new atheists'" dislike (or hatred) of religion with a belief of outright suppression of religion. These are two very different things. Just because someone dislikes something doesn't mean they want to see it banned, or suppressed. As I said before the "new atheists" have made direct statements saying otherwise.

For example, I personally dislike (sometimes almost on the verge of hate to be honest) people who smoke, drink, and waste their lives away by partying. Just because I disagree with what they are doing (and sometimes harming themselves or others) while doing it I would never wish to try to stop them from doing it. I dislike it, but that's what people have to put up with if they want to live in a free society. Some people will do things, or even believe things, that stand in the face of reason when people have freedom to do and believe what they want.

Similarly, none of the "new atheists," despite their harsh language towards religion, want to stop people from believing or want to ban religion, just as I dislike the partying lifestyle, I would never dream of telling someone that they cannot do that, or try to force them from doing that. I might try to talk a loved one or a friend out of doing those things because it could harm them, just as I'm doing with my wife right now because she smokes and I wish she would quit because it's not healthy. I also hate the cigarette smoke, the smell, etc., but I do not try to stop her, just try to talk her out of it.

There is actually an excellent parallel here. Just as I do not wish to actively stop my wife from smoking - for example trying to ban her from smoking; taking the cigarette out of her hand, taking her packs away from her and throwing them away, etc. - neither do the "new atheists" want to force people to give up their beliefs, or ban religion. They are simply speaking out about something they see as a danger and is irrational and trying to talk people out of it.

So, to answer your question, do I think Hitchens wants religion around? No, but I know he doesn't want to suppress it or stop people from making use of their freedom because of the quote I gave you in an earlier email. As I explained, not liking something is completely separate from wanting it banned, or actively suppressed. Just as I tolerate my wife's smoking, while at the same time trying to get her to stop, the "new atheists" tolerate religion and try to talk people out of their irrational beliefs because they see it as a potential danger.

"I WISH ATHEIST LEADERS WOULD FINALLY FOCUS ON THIS PROBLEM RATHER THAN PUTTING ALL MANIFESTATIONS OF RELIGION IN THE SAME PACKAGE. IN THIS I WOULD SUPPORT THEM, FOR WE REASONABLE PEOPLE KNOW THAT ONLY EVIL CAN COME OUT OF INTOLERANCE AND EXTREMISM."

I actually agree with this, but even kind christians such as yourself, seem to get sucked up into this whole "culture war" and perpetuate much of the same propaganda that the extremists do. Such things as your (and please correct me if I'm wrong) dislike for the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and your claims about the communists, such as (taken from http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/dawkins_rebuttals.htm):

"In one of his more bizarre creedal statements as an atheist, Dawkins insists that there is 'not the smallest evidence' that atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. It's an astonishing, naïve, and somewhat sad statement. The facts are otherwise. In their efforts to enforce their atheist ideology, the Soviet authorities systematically destroyed and eliminated the vast majority of churches and priests during the period 1918-41. The statistics make for dreadful reading. This violence and repression was undertaken in pursuit of an atheist agenda -- the elimination of religion. This doesn't fit with Dawkins' highly sanitized, idealized picture of atheism. Dawkins is clearly an ivory tower atheist, disconnected from the real and brutal world of the twentieth century."

This is the issue we've been discussing and I truly feel I've successfully rebutted each of your claims.

You also say of the Freedom from Religion Foundation (http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_successes.htm):

"The FFRF is unrelenting in its mission to free America of Religion. They consistently manipulate the Constitution as their weapon of choice. As their web site promulgates, they have been brutally successful and have no intention of stopping their obsessive pursuit."

I honestly think you're wrong about their goals. We're getting onto a whole other topic but the Foundation is simply trying to uphold the separation of church and state as the founders wanted. Of course there will be disagreements about how much of a separation they wanted and how to interpret the constitution, but it seems to me that they wouldn't have liked any religious individuals trying to force their beliefs on the populace through the voting process, such as the problem across the country with anti- gay marriage legislation, and stem-cell research (though that ban has been lifted by Obama). The Foundation isn't trying to ban religion but trying to uphold that constitutional principal of the separation of church and state; trying to keep the influence of religion out of governmental policy as much as possible, while still allowing people to have their personal beliefs, their places of worship, etc.

Even their website says of their goals (http://www.ffrf.org/purposes/):

What is the Foundation's purpose?

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., is an educational group working for the separation of state and church. Its purposes, as stated in its bylaws, are to promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.

That statement seems to very much back up what I said above.

Thank you again for the reply. It's been very interesting seeing your points of view and having this discussion. I wish more theists were like yourself and would be more kind and would engage in a polite dialogue with those who hold opposing views. Because of the several rude theists I've encountered I was wondering if I might have your permission to post our discussions on my blog to show theists and atheists alike that a polite and respectful dialogue can be had.

Take care.


Ken

a.k.a. "Arizona Atheist"


UPDATE - 12-6-09

It appears that Michael Caputo isn't as nice of a guy as I originally thought. As I explained, I had posted our discussion, thinking he was a nice guy and wouldn't mind my doing this, but today I find he has posted a smear about me at his websites! He calls me unethical, and yet never contacts me to ask if I'd kindly remove the post (which I would have), and instead writes a smear about me calling me unethical! See the post about this here.