You have to be careful about this. Anarchists do not equal atheists. A prominent example being Leo Tolstoy and the movement of Christian anarchism. And certainly, while it is true that most anarchist organizations do have disdain for religion in some form, it is foolhardy to argue that every group is motivated by atheism; in fact, religion is seldom mentioned when it comes to anarchist groups. It has nowhere near the direct link that Islam and Christianity and Judaism have to jihad, Protestant vs Catholic and zealots. Here, just to throw out another case study, possibly the most famous anarchist organization of all time, the Black Hand, was comprised as follows... As for communist terrorism, same thing. The fact that they are atheist has very little to do with the overarching goals of the groups in question. Very seldom do you hear a Communist battle cry of "NO GOD!". "CLASS EQUALITY!" and nowadays "FOR OBAMA!" are much more likely.
I don't buy that, show me a stat from somewhere, on most surveys, about 82% of people identify themselves as Christians. Your stat would leave almost no room for Jews/Muslims/etc. Give me a stat!
For most of these Christian and Muslim terrorists, I would say that religion basically has nothing to do with it as well. In their minds, they begin to merge nationalism, religion, race, politics, etc. so that what they claim is religion is actually some form of reactionary social/political ideology with a little bit of religious window dressing. In any case, hardcore Communist ideology in my experience always has an intensely anti-clerical bias. Examples from the Russian Revolution poster collection at NY Public Library: <a href="http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/id?1216125" title="Caras, kunigas ir bagocius. Digital ID: 1216125. New York Public Library"><img src="http://images.nypl.org/index.php?id=1216125&t=r" alt="Caras, kunigas ir bagocius. Digital ID: 1216125. New York Public Library" title="Caras, kunigas ir bagocius. Digital ID: 1216125. New York Public Library"></a> <a href="http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/id?1216178" title="Trudovoi khleb. Digital ID: 1216178. New York Public Library"><img src="http://images.nypl.org/index.php?id=1216178&t=r" alt="Trudovoi khleb. Digital ID: 1216178. New York Public Library" title="Trudovoi khleb. Digital ID: 1216178. New York Public Library"></a> <a href="http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/id?1216198" title="Vse liudi brat’ia, - liubliu s... Digital ID: 1216198. New York Public Library"><img src="http://images.nypl.org/index.php?id=1216198&t=r" alt="Vse liudi brat’ia, - liubliu s... Digital ID: 1216198. New York Public Library" title="Vse liudi brat’ia, - liubliu s... Digital ID: 1216198. New York Public Library"></a> <a href="http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/id?1216203" title="Da zdravstvuet mirovoi Oktiabr... Digital ID: 1216203. New York Public Library"><img src="http://images.nypl.org/index.php?id=1216203&t=r" alt="Da zdravstvuet mirovoi Oktiabr... Digital ID: 1216203. New York Public Library" title="Da zdravstvuet mirovoi Oktiabr... Digital ID: 1216203. New York Public Library"></a> <a href="http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/id?1216224" title="Kto protiv Sovetov. Digital ID: 1216224. New York Public Library"><img src="http://images.nypl.org/index.php?id=1216224&t=r" alt="Kto protiv Sovetov. Digital ID: 1216224. New York Public Library" title="Kto protiv Sovetov. Digital ID: 1216224. New York Public Library"></a> More often than not, the "Capitalist" and the "Priest" are seen hand-in-hand as sycophants of the Tzar, and leaches who perform no primary labor, but spoon off the work of others.
Less to do with religion and more to do with politics, in my opinion. Of course, not saying that atheists have never done great evil, but it is always nice to have some checks and balances when the inevitable flareups from religious militants occur. You're right when it comes to religion as window dressing; I don't think it's behind everything or even most things in extremist terrorism. It just happens to be very effective window dressing...one that can easily incite hate and anger without much effort, to a degree where an atheist organization (hopefully) can never strive to reach. Religion has the potential for great good but in cases like these, a lot of evil can and does result, even if it's just a smokescreen for bigger problems...it's smoke that people can rally to easily. I'm sure however, that if the foot were on the other side and organized religion were the unorganized minority and atheism was a systematic majority, then atheism and preservation of atheism could just as easily be manipulated into the same violence religion causes (which did happen with state terrorism in the USSR, I have to admit.)
Except that a lot of religious terrorists their motives are often primarily political. You cite Northern Ireland as an example of Christian terrorism yet the IRA is primarily a secular organization. They don't refer to themselves as Irish Catholics but as Irish Republicans and have allied themselves with other secular radical nationalist groups like the ETA and PLO even though they don't share a common religion. Further they have allied themselves to groups that are hostile to Catholicism and religion in general such as the FARC and Red November. You seem to be citing atheism as being a rational check against religion and it being a rare thing for atheism to be manipulated into violence. Yet your own example of the USSR was incredibly bloody and when you thrown in things like the Cultural Revolution, Killing Fields, and attrocities by groups like Sendero Luminosa radicalized atheist groups avowedly hostile too religion seem just as prone to terror and bloodthirtyness as radical religion.
Uh...hmm. I'm not for atheism anymore then I am for organized religion. You may even say I dislike them equally. I favor balance. That's my philosophy in everything. Right now, I hate the way organized religion has too much power, but if the world were to go Dawkins/united world of atheists on me, I would hate it just as much. Too much power=abuse, simple as that. And religion has a sordid history of making simple political affairs much worse then they are. If we are willing to accept state terrorism into this argument, then the record is not even comparable. Sure, religion's been at it more and longer then atheism, but that's the point; extremist religion has been a great evil upon man and has to be checked and contained by something. The very fact that you can only defend the atrocities committed under the influence of religion by bringing up equally heinous crimes done by Atheists is telling. All I'm hoping for is that one day, organized religion will lose enough power and legitimacy to cut away at some of the worst abuses of it's reach; sharia for example, improbable as that may be. You being up the Cultural Revolution and the Killing Fields. I raise you the slaughter of Jerusalem's Muslims and Jews by the Franks, the Papal Inquisition, St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, the Conquistadors, the Taiping Rebellion...etc. etc.
Well if you are talking about sheer body count I would say that the amount of blood on the hands of the avowedly atheists (Communists, Marxists and Nazis) is far greater than that committed by the religious in all of history. That said I'm not in the business of defending attrocity and don't subscribe to the idea that attrocity committed by atheists should be downplayed as a check against religion or excused since religions have been committing attrocities for a long time. You brought up a point that atheisism haven't committed attrocities. You later modified that to say that they did but this was the exception. I'm just pointing out that its not as exceptional as you might think. That isn't defending attrocities commited in the name of religion but pointing out that your orginal point is not supported by the facts.
I never said atheists didn't commit atrocities at all. To clarify my argument, because of the current atmosphere of religious domination, it is seldom or not really at all heard of individual or small groups of atheist extremists going off on a tangent and waging anything akin to 9/11 and the numerous bombings Muslim extremists have committed. After all this arguing, you've brought me one somewhat comparable example. That speaks magnitudes (to me) about the power the current religious atmosphere can have on people. Both you and Otto brought up state terrorism but I've tried to be quite clear that I don't like the abuse of power that an overly theist or atheist regime would wield. To sum it all up, I dislike the power religion holds over people; my simple, distilled, pull off the crap point and it is my honest opinion (I would equally detest atheism if it held such a position of power.) It is responsible for much good...but like all things, religion should be taken with a dose of reality and I think we could all stand to gain if religion's influence faded away somewhat. Separation of state and church was a great step...but I hope more is done to curtail the power of churches and mosques. Religion should NEVER be conflicting with the empirical domain of science unless there are ethical issues involved. Creationism is a farce, and millions of American children will unfortunately have to suffer through it (in my opinion), just as a quick example. Once again, it isn't an either/or I am thinking about. More like a "you two sides beat each other, but beat each other fairly so both of you will be reduced to a pulp and unable to turn otherwise rational people into irrational people and unbalanced, irrational people into monsters." Both sides, to me, are responsible for great evil when placed in positions of excessive power. I can only hope that if the two are somewhat evenly matched that nothing will ever approach the hegemony religion has enjoyed for the last couple of thousand years or so. Idealistic and probably at odds with human nature and thus doomed to fail, but I sincerely hope a fair balance between those who believe and those that don't would help solve a chunk of the problems facing mankind. ...Nazis weren't avowed atheists, just as an aside.
here is an excerpt from an online articel.... link Where is the unbridled media coverage of this trajic murder? I guess it doesn't fil the template they use for devoting time to storiies, but an abortion doctor getting killed in a church (which is a joke in and of itself) is on every channel?
This converage makes sense, since the murder of the abortion doctor is much, much more newsworthy. The shooting at the recruiting station may have been Muslim terrorism, but they're saying he likely acted alone, and we don't have great cause to be concerned that it is a part of anything bigger here in the States. The murder of the abortion doctor is a big event in the abortion debate that has divided the country for decades and gives a lot of doctors reasonable cause to fear for their own lives. The murderer may have acted alone, but was active in a community that may well have others who share his belief in righteous killing. Operation Rescue can hardly drum up a condemnation of his actions. Potential anti-abortion violence is likely more dangerous to the nation than potential domestic Muslim anti-American violence. That may change if we see more attacks like the one on the recruiting office, but I honestly don't expect it.
The stories of two very different lives with similar fates crossed through the media's hands yesterday — both equally important but one lacked the proper attention. The death of 67-year old George Tiller was unacceptable, but equally disgusting was another death that police believe was politically and religiously motivated as well. William Long died yesterday. The 23-year old Army Recruiter was gunned down by a fanatic; another fellow soldier was wounded in the ambush. The soldiers had just completed their basic training and were talking to potential recruits, just as my son, Track, once did. Whatever titles we give these murderers, both deserve our attention. Violence like that is no way to solve a political dispute nor a religious one. And the fanatics on all sides do great disservice when they confuse dissention with rage and death. Spoiler
"If tomorrow I tell the press that like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truck load of soldiers will be blown up... no one panics. Because that's all part of the plan. But when I say that one little old [doctor] will die, well then everyone loses their minds... Introduce a little anarchy, upset the established order and everything becomes... chaos..." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bQ_nNUMb7I One word changed for the point in this thread. Watch the vid linked... 1:51 to 2:30. We are all desensitized to military related death... face it. For the record, this is my first chime in since the election night results of 2008.
wonder why that is? I would think 7 years of a failed war might do that to people. Anyway this whole "the media is biased with their coverage" line is amusing. Sort of like the firestorm we see with Cheney FINALLY admitting today that Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Boy! That's all over the news! nice to see ya back IROC
Yeah, because 5000 deaths is > than the millions of deaths in a single war. We are the opposite of desensitized ... we are p****fied.
Nah... we are just less surprised when a soldier dies... death is sort of implied in that line of life choice. Similarly for Police (though not as numb to it), and maybe even a dare devil or stunt man. I'm just saying, the first thing that popped into my mind was less about the religious implications, and more about the line of life/work that we associate with death. Most people don't associate being a doctor as a high risk of death job. It becomes even more shocking when it happens in a church. The soldiers killed by someone that is the "classic" anti-American sentiment-filled person of this age... well, we have somehow become more accustomed to that being a possible story. I find that all wars involve death, and that even in times of "peace" soldiers die (whether in training, boot camp, or secret "peace keeping" missions). People just numb out to "military recruiter shot to death" vs. "doctor murdered." Just observing. Nice to be back, mc mark. I think.
a New York City connection: The NY Post reports that Abdulhakim Muhammad, who is accused of fatally shooting a soldier outside an Arkansas recruiting center, "had a computer photo of a similar facility in Times Square." Muhammed, a Muslim convert, pleaded not guilty to the shooting, which also injured another soldier and took place in suburban Little Rock on Monday; investigators say he targeted soldiers "because of what they had done to Muslims in the past." According to court documents, "Molotov cocktails, three guns and ammunition" were found in Muhammed's truck and that investigators found found research into multiple sites in different states" were found on a computer connected to him. The Post adds, "The NYPD was notified and alerted centers in all five boroughs." The Times Square recruiting center was target of a bomb last year.
