Letters to the Indo: Atheists are the

mehfesto

Given atheism's contribution to society in the 20th century -- largely a combination of gulags, death camps and killing fields -- surely those promoting such a poisonous ideology should be arrested for thought crimes against humanity.

Eric Conway


"IN response to Eric Conway (Letters, April 20), atheism is not an ideology; it is merely the rejection of theism or a deity.

Consequently, acts such as gulags and death camps were not and could not be committed in the name of atheism, but rather were committed in the name of fascism.

Using your logic, Mr Conway, it would be easy to draw a parallel between the Catholic Church and paedophiles, with one in 25 US priests being formally accused of child abuse.

This too, however, would be wildly inaccurate and ill-founded. Let's not go down this road Mr Conway, please.

Sean Conroy



"Conroy's assertion that atheism is not an ideology (Letters, April 21) doesn't square with reality. Communist and fascist regimes of the 20th century were grounded in atheism, that's why they had such a pathological hatred of religion and persecuted it.
Gulags, death camps and killing fields were integral to atheism.

Eric Conway.








Anyone care to wage in here?

ColmDawson

Just the same old rebuttal that we shouldn't still be having to make: atheism is not an ideology, nor did the leaders of the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century commit their atrocities in its name. Their opposition to religion was a natural result of their desire for complete, unshared power over their people.

baltimore sun

Who is this dufus Conway?

None of the above things were done in the name of atheism.
Sean Conroy is dead right with what he writes and I cannot really add more, go watch some richard dawkins on youtube if you really believe atheism is to blame for things like the above.

I, recently, after years of struggle completely gave up my beliefs and I got to say, it has set me free, I read some Dawkins but wasn't really convinced and did some more reading on humanism and finally I read Darwin's book and that was it for me.

Waking-Dreams

He's the same chap who writes to papers all the time:

Church not to blame for abuse

Among the most nauseating aspects of the Roscommon abuse case (yes, difficult though it may be to believe, the vast majority of Catholics are appalled by the story) is its use by the usual anti-Catholic suspects to indulge in the age-old pastime of Church-bashing.

One expects this knee-jerk bigotry from the Irish Times and their acolytes in the broadcast media. However, it comes as a shock to read the same thoughtless, offensive bile emanating from other sources. To suggest that the real villain was the Catholic Church doesn’t quite square with my experience, nor indeed with the facts.

Eric Conway, Navan, Co Meath

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2009/02/01/story39176.asp

(bottom of the page)

and:

Whatever the culpability of the clergy in the context of sex abuse, such criticisms are rich coming from someone in the medical profession. Medicine has produced more serial killers than all the other professions put together. The first person to be hanged in America for serial murder was a doctor, as was the last person to be hanged in Glasgow. Combined with such other charming members of the profession as Drs Crippen, Mengele and Shipman, it's surely a case of "physician, heal thyself".

Eric Conway, Navan, Co Meath

http://www.iol.ie/~stuartneilson/InThePress.htm

and:

The present hectoring push for so-called 'gay marriage' is misguided and irresponsible in the extreme. If society has lost its moral compass, it doesn't seem a particularly good idea for the State to further encourage it.

On the other hand, if society has gone to the dogs, perhaps we should go the whole hog and vie with the likes of California and Holland as the world's looniest society.

ERIC CONWAY, NAVAN, CO MEATH

I think people generally become insecure when you talk to them about things they hold dear. Religion is the ultimate emotive topic. It all boils down to insecurity though. And when people (be they athiest or whatever) start talking publically about religion, others can feel threatened and get very insecure and in turn, fight back. You can talk about this stuff with some folks, but plenty don't seem to be able to digest what you're saying and simply reject it.

Tim Robbins

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

I think people generally become insecure when you talk to them about things they hold dear.

I think the Indo usually dumbs most things down. People write letters to it because they wouldn't publish them in the Times.

Zombrex

Yes, we need to mount a serious response to the crazy person who writes letters to the newspapers

Waking-Dreams

I think all papers are guilty of dumbing down to some degree. They have to fill their pages with something, be it trivia, cliche or just recycled news from the same sources. Modern journalism is not what it used to be. The letters page is just an elevated platform for people to mouth-off. Much better to do so online I'd have thought, rather than via the pages of something which views the truth through the lens of commercial logic.

Most people don't write letters of complaint when they get offended over others' opinions. It's the insecure person who has to get it off their chest and try to impose their views on everyone else. Good for a laugh I guess.

Ickle Magoo

Whatever the culpability of the clergy in the context of sex abuse, such criticisms are rich coming from someone in the medical profession. Medicine has produced more serial killers than all the other professions put together.

He's hardly a rational individual puting forward groundbreakingly logical arguments....yeah, don't we all know about the GMC covering up for those killer doctor and nurses, moving them from hospital to hospital so they can kill again - and always ready with a house and pay-packet when convicted medical staff are released from prison... :rolleyes:

Galvasean

Meh, he's just adding to the growing meme that religious people are deluded oddballs.

I did like the letter the other day asking along the lines of, "Why did you print such an ill-informed letter? Oh yeah, so people like me would write in response. Well played."

PeterIanStaker

read that alright and just rolled my eyes.

Daftendirekt

The explanation is obvious:

The Independent is being trolled.

Galvasean

It does seem to be troll central alright. I mean, when you have Kevin Myers and Ian O' Doherty running a competition to see who can get the most complaints you know something is up.

iUseVi

Galvasean wrote: »

It does seem to be troll central alright. I mean, when you have Kevin Myers and Ian O' Doherty running a competition to see who can get the most complaints you know something is up.

They probably have some bet going and think the whole thing is hilarious. I suppose any publicity is good publicity.

fontanalis

I think he also posts on Amazon reviews.

Waking-Dreams

Wonder where all this is going. He'll probably publish his own book, a selection of his "best" letters to all the myriad newspaper editors over the years. And you just know some people would read it just to see how nuts his ideas are. He'll call it "Letters to an Un-Catholic Nation" or something.

robindch

It's a pity that the letters' pages are black and white. I imagine that Mr Conway's notes are penned in a splendidly livid green ink, and, no doubt, signed with an exclamation mark.

Tyler MacDurden

robindch wrote: »

It's a pity that the letters' pages are black and white. I imagine that Mr Conway's notes are penned in a splendidly livid green ink, and, no doubt, signed with an exclamation mark.

I think five is standard.

"Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind." -- Terry Pratchett*


*Shamelessly pilfered from iUseVi's sig.

ZorbaTehZ

The man obviously leads an exhilarating life, if you google his name, you'll find that he's been writing letters to newspapers since 2006 including the Examiner, Irish Times, Independent, the Tribune, mainly bashing gays and atheists.

Galvasean

ZorbaTehZ wrote: »

The man obviously leads an exhilarating life, if you google his name, you'll find that he's been writing letters to newspapers since 2006 including the Examiner, Irish Times, Independent, the Tribune, mainly bashing gays and atheists.

He's not a fan of evolution or Richard Dawkins either. What a surprise.

darjeeling

Eric Conway, the Independent wrote:

Given atheism's contribution to society in the 20th century -- largely a combination of gulags, death camps and killing fields -- surely those promoting such a poisonous ideology should be arrested for thought crimes against humanity.

Whether he means us to or not, I don't think we should take seriously anyone who thinks that gulags result from insufficient zeal in rounding up thought criminals.

Dades

ZorbaTehZ wrote: »

he's been writing letters to newspapers since 2006 including the Examiner, Irish Times, Independent, the Tribune, mainly bashing gays and atheists.

He must really have it in for gatheists. :pac:

That guy is a tool.

PeterIanStaker

Tool indeed. He must have quite a sad life actually.
I was kinda peeved reading the letters, now I feel sorry for him.
And not in a "oh you stupid git" kind of way, because I'll leave the judgemental, holier than thou stuff to the religious types.

Dubhghaillix

Saw this one today

In response both to Eric Conway (Letters, April 22) and Sean Conroy (Letters, April 21) may I suggest a middle ground?
People, in general, have a capability of doing terrible things on the basis of beliefs or lack thereof.
Our history has been, and continues to be, a testament to that.
I believe Mr Conroy is correct to suggest that atheism in and of itself is not an ideology, but rather a lack of belief.
I also believe that Mr Conway is correct to say that under communist regimes during the 20th century (Stalin, Hoxha, Pol Pot to name a few), Christianity, Judaism and Islam, among other forms of religious thought, were suppressed and many severely persecuted using atheism as its justification.
Its legacy continues in the treatment of religion in North Korea and China. As a Christian, however, I cringe while reading accounts of the Crusades, to think that people could represent our gospel in such a manner.
People, in general, have a great ability to twist beliefs, or even lack of belief to suit their own agenda.
This is true both in the case of religious warfare, and in the state atheism that occurred under communist regimes.
Gareth Peoples

QLLOL

mehfesto

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

Saw this one today

QLLOL

What's QLLOL?

Dubhghaillix

mehfesto wrote: »

What's QLLOL?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=qllol

Quite Literally laughed out loud.

Galvasean

In fairness to today's guy he was doing well upuntil:

Gareth Peoples wrote:

communist regimes during the 20th century (Stalin, Hoxha, Pol Pot to name a few), Christianity, Judaism and Islam, among other forms of religious thought, were suppressed and many severely persecuted using atheism as its justification.

Atheism wasn't used as justification. Megalomania was. Any organization (religious or otherwise) that was seen to be placing anything above unwavering loyalty to the dictator in question was quickly snuffed out.

mehfesto

Galvasean wrote: »

In fairness to today's guy he was doing well upuntil:


Atheism wasn't used as justification. Megalomania was. Any organization (religious or otherwise) that was seen to be placing anything above unwavering loyalty to the dictator in question was quickly snuffed out.

I totally agree. I'd like to say write in, but given that we've established the first chap is a notorious biggot, I don't really see the point anymore. He beloved what he wants, despite all the pesky evidence in the way.

ChocolateSauce

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think the Indo usually dumbs most things down. People write letters to it because they wouldn't publish them in the Times.

<>

Dubhghaillix

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

A, between 40-80% of the letters published each day are fabricated.

If this is true then you may have just restored my confidence in humanity.

Erren Music

The scary thing is that his opinion is shared by the faithful deluded who believe in santa and the tooth fairy.

dvpower

Erren Music wrote: »

The scary thing is that his opinion is shared by the faithful deluded who believe in santa and the tooth fairy.

Erren Music is scared of children :eek:

Dades

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

Saw this one today

It seems like our consistent attempts to clarify the atheism/communism/meglamaniac connection hasn't persuaded at least one of our regulars.

Irlandese

robindch wrote: »

It's a pity that the letters' pages are black and white. I imagine that Mr Conway's notes are penned in a splendidly livid green ink, and, no doubt, signed with an exclamation mark.

Jesus,
I have a slight visual handicap that occasionally gets me into trouble and for a second there I thought you had written that he signed his letters with an "excrement mark" !
Phew.
He doesn't though, does he?

johnny_ultimate

I'd consider the people who take the time to write into newspapers regularly to bemoan how *insert ideology / social group / whatever here* is ruining the world are hardly worth listening to. They are set in their ways, not much to do about it. They like rubbing how right they are in other people's faces, without any logic or understanding (the latter is a fairly Christian concept, no?). Yeah, we all have our beliefs, and are probably happy to argue in favour of them. But this guy? We have an internet word for him: troll.

Dave!

lol jakkass

philologos

Dades wrote: »

It seems like our consistent attempts to clarify the atheism/communism/meglamaniac connection hasn't persuaded at least one of our regulars.

Dave! wrote: »

lol jakkass

PDN and others, have brought up clearly that atheism was and is taught in a number of countries educational system. In these countries atheism was also twisted, please note this, to justify the persecution of believers. Whether or not the intention was to give more attention to the leader is irrelevant, atheism was still twisted to do this, pretty much in the same way that Pope Urban II twisted Christian theology and numerous facts about how they ran Jerusalem to go to war with Muslims.

This doesn't mean that atheism in practice in most other states is for malicious aims. Rather all it shows is that atheism can be twisted much like religion towards malicious goals. To deny that atheism was twisted, is dishonest. It would be like if I denied that the Crusades were based on a malcious twisting of the Gospel.

Atheism doesn't form an ideology in and of itself, but it can be incorporated into other ideologies such as communism and twisted for its own benefit.

What in essence is really being said in this to Mr Conway, is that yes people twisted atheism, but no more than anyone has twisted Christianity. Valid point. The whole point of the letter is to provide a middle ground in what was a very polarised discussion.

Irlandese

Jakkass wrote: »

PDN and others, have brought up clearly that atheism was and is taught in a number of countries educational system. In these countries atheism was also twisted, please note this, to justify the persecution of believers. Whether or not the intention was to give more attention to the leader is irrelevant, atheism was still twisted to do this, pretty much in the same way that Pope Urban II twisted Christian theology and numerous facts about how they ran Jerusalem to go to war with Muslims.

This doesn't mean that atheism in practice in most other states is for malicious aims. Rather all it shows is that atheism can be twisted much like religion towards malicious goals. To deny that atheism was twisted, is dishonest. It would be like if I denied that the Crusades were based on a malcious twisting of the Gospel.

Atheism doesn't form an ideology in and of itself, but it can be incorporated into other ideologies such as communism and twisted for its own benefit.

What in essence is really being said in this to Mr Conway, is that yes people twisted atheism, but no more than anyone has twisted Christianity. Valid point. The whole point of the letter is to provide a middle ground in what was a very polarised discussion.

No, PDN is the one twisting the facts there.
Religion was/is decried, accurately, as "the opium of the people".
It has been used since cave men invented the first religions, worshipping the sun,
to deflect from lack of food, bad government, corruption and abuse.
It is like "values".
One cannot "teach" values to anyone.
Far less one can "paint them on"
as illogically and fruitlessly requested by the RC Church to teachers in it's own schools.
One can merely help somone to realise and develop their own values and clarify them.
Similarly, one develops ones own concepts around the values we live by,
including whether or not one wishes to use a focal point or lodestone or a silly set of stories and mumbo-jumbo, with little bells on ( these last literally in the case of the RC Church ) called religions.
It is not hard to understand, really.

philologos

^^ From my view, this is mere excuse making. The evidence is clear that in communist regimes atheism was twisted as used as a tool. This is particularly clear from Albania, and Soviet Russia in particular.

This is just an acceptance of history, much like for the Christian to accept that the Salem Witch Trials, and the Crusades took place.

Its a denial of history to do this. The evidence points to this conclusion. This is why it isn't convincing.

Dades

Atheism can't be twisted. Ignoring nit-picking for just a moment - it's just a disbelief. It's simply not sharing other people's faith.

Forcing an anti-church agenda, and promoting atheism as a belief, does not involve twisting anything. Regimes like the ones in question simply tried to force a lack of belief on people, because the opposite would see some of their power in the hands of the church.

The problem with mentioning atheism along with words like "ideology" and "twisting" gives people the impression that atheism itself has a dark side that can be harnessed to subvert the will of good people - which simply isn't true.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

The evidence is clear that in communist regimes atheism was twisted as used as a tool. This is particularly clear from Albania, and Soviet Russia in particular.

It's certainly not clear from my experience in and of Russia where, in broad terms, the Soviets regarded religious believers as backward and -- whatever their private reactions behind the scenes -- tended in public to lampoon them more than anything else.

Could you please provide large-scale, unambiguous evidence from many Soviet leaders over a long period of time which will back up your conclusion that atheism was the ideology used to justify the continuous and violent persecution of religious believers? A conclusion which, I should say, though widely-held amongst religious believers, is almost completely absent in my experience, from people who have any familiarity with the period.

Things that will be convincing are large single-subject speeches from Stalin on the topic in which he calls for the persecution of religious believers using some atheistic doctrine as justification, sizable chunks of the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin etc doing the same thing, reports from the regular police, the KGB or the Komsomol (who would have been doing the persecution) documenting the persecution and making it clear that they were following specific doctrines of atheism from specific writers on atheism, or the speeches and writings of Stalin et al. Generally, things which fall under the heading of convincing "Primary Source Material".

If you can't do this, then I think you should perhaps consider withdrawing your conclusion.

.

philologos

I'm sure you could have found these yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Anti-Religious_Legislation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_Anti-Religious_Campaign_%281928-1941%29

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

People in general have the ability to do terrible things under the justification of religion, and under the justification of atheism. That's reality, and without reasonable historical evidence, its unreasonable to deny that this did take place.

Dades wrote:

Atheism can't be twisted. Ignoring nit-picking for just a moment - it's just a disbelief. It's simply not sharing other people's faith.

Disbelief can very much be used as justification for certain action, pretty much in the same way that belief can. This is about as possible as Christianity being twisted.

Its utterly intransigent to expect people to regard explaining this away as being reasonable.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

That's reality, and without reasonable historical evidence, its unreasonable to deny that this did take place.

You are still failing to see the point.

You have claimed that atheism was "twisted". I am saying that there was as strong movement to neutralize the political power of religion as an existential threat to the Communist party. This basically meant removing the orthodox church from the position it had acquired under the Tsar, hence all the legislation in the Wiki article.

"Twisting atheism" and neutralizing the political power of the church might have looked the same, but they're not. And your claim that atheism was "twisted" is simply not supported by the links you've provided.

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

Disbelief can very much be used as justification for certain action, pretty much in the same way that belief can. This is about as possible as Christianity being twisted.

Explain how disbelief can be used in such a way.

Christianity, and other religions can be twisted because people can use their original source material to support their actions. The bible is huge, complicated and contains a paragraph to support almost any action.

For someone to support an action there has be at least an ideological justification for that action if religion is not involved.

philologos

All you need to do is read about what is described in what I linked you to. Disbelief can be used as a justification to discriminate against people of faith pretty much in the same way that belief can be used to discriminate against people of no faith, or of other faiths.

I've already clarified, that atheism was twisted and used as a tool, and was a part of a greater ideology, communism.

I find it amazing how much issue there is to saying, that people of belief or lack thereof can do terrible things if one warps it to suits ones agenda. I find it quite dishonest that this amount of denial is happening over what was intended to be a middle ground on a rather polarized discussion.

robindch wrote:

You have claimed that atheism was "twisted". I am saying that there was as strong movement to neutralize the political power of religion as an existential threat to the Communist party. This basically meant removing the orthodox church from the position it had acquired under the Tsar, hence all the legislation in the Wiki article.

Atheism was the justification for the movement to neutralise religion. It was for a communist agenda, but atheism was the tool they used.

Erren Music

Jakkass wrote: »

The evidence points to this conclusion. This is why it isn't convincing.

We know what your understanding of evidence is.

Jakkass wrote: »

I've already clarified, that atheism was twisted and used as a tool, and was a part of a greater ideology, communism.

Dades wrote: »

Atheism can't be twisted. Ignoring nit-picking for just a moment - it's just a disbelief. It's simply not sharing other people's faith.

Could you rewrite your sentence like this, and then see how it reads

not believing in the FSM was twisted and used as a tool, and was a part of a greater ideology, communism.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I find it quite dishonest that this amount of denial is happening over what was intended to be a middle ground on a rather polarized discussion.

There's no honorable middle ground between truth and falsehood.

Jakkass wrote: »

Atheism was the justification for the movement to neutralise religion. It was for a communist agenda, but atheism was the tool they used.

Yes, this is your claim and we are familiar with it.

Now, please back it your claim by producing primary source material -- something as simple as a single,well-documented occurrence of a sentence such as "Stalin says there is no god, therefore this orthodox bishop must be shot" would be a great start!

philologos

robindch wrote: »

There's no honorable middle ground between truth and falsehood.Yes, this is your claim and we are familiar with it.

Its true that atheism was warped and used by communist states to further their agenda.

Its also true that atheism in and of itself isn't an ideology.

It isn't true at all, that state atheism wasn't a part of the history of the USSR. That's dishonest.

The reality is, that atheism about as much as anything else can be abused for selfish ambitions. This doesn't mean that atheists are doing so for selfish ambitions any more than Christians are doing so for selfish ambitions, but that atheism has been abused in the past as Christianity has been.

robindch wrote: »

Now, please back it your claim by producing primary source material -- something as simple as a single,well-documented occurrence of a sentence such as "Stalin says there is no god, therefore this orthodox bishop must be shot" would be a great start!

How about presenting a decent case (for once, without explaining it away), that the widespread consensus that state atheism was a part of the communist ideology of the USSR, Albania, Cambodia, etc is false?

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

It isn't true at all, that state atheism wasn't a part of the history of the USSR.

Look, for the love of sweet divine Jesus and all that's holy, I understand that perfectly well. Hell, I've even been inside what was once the Soviet state's largest Museum of Atheism (in St Petersburg).

I am asking you to back up your claim that what, for want of a better word, is the "doctrine" of atheism was used as justification for crimes. As I said above, even a single, well-documented instance of a sentence like "Stalin says there is no god, therefore this orthodox bishop must be shot" would be a good start.

You are making the claim here and it's for you to back it up. If you can't, then you should withdraw it.

Erren Music

Jakkass wrote: »

Its true that atheism was warped and used by communist states to further their agenda.

Its also true that atheism in and of itself isn't an ideology.

It isn't true at all, that state atheism wasn't a part of the history of the USSR. That's dishonest.

The reality is, that atheism about as much as anything else can be abused for selfish ambitions. This doesn't mean that atheists are doing so for selfish ambitions any more than Christians are doing so for selfish ambitions, but that atheism has been abused in the past as Christianity has been.



How about presenting a decent case (for once, without explaining it away), that the widespread consensus that state atheism was a part of the communist ideology of the USSR, Albania, Cambodia, etc is false?

Blood hell, are you incapable of reading

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakkass
The evidence points to this conclusion. This is why it isn't convincing.

We know what your understanding of evidence is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakkass

I've already clarified, that atheism was twisted and used as a tool, and was a part of a greater ideology, communism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dades
Atheism can't be twisted. Ignoring nit-picking for just a moment - it's just a disbelief. It's simply not sharing other people's faith.

Could you rewrite your sentence like this, and then see how it reads

not believing in the FSM was twisted and used as a tool, and was a part of a greater ideology, communism.

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

The problem with mentioning atheism along with words like "ideology" and "twisting" gives people the impression that atheism itself has a dark side that can be harnessed to subvert the will of good people - which simply isn't true.

I'd also like to ad that atheism doesn't necessarily have a good side either. It's a pretty neutral position.

kiffer

I was going to post and say atheism can't be twisted as it's basically 'not believing in god(s)"
but I have to say it's wrong to say it can't be twisted...
we see it twisted all the time.

but to keep on topic...
I would guess, and it is at this point a guess, that generally speaking what gets twisted when you want to justify persecuting a group is often the beliefs of the persecuted rather than the persecutors...