Because these are not militant atheists they are militant anti-theists. People don't seem to understand the difference.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheist Terrorism
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
If the article and the ones it links to are any indication, it had a Republican faction that happened to be anti-clericalist (not really anti-theistic), going back to previous conflicts between the newly established 1931 Spanish Republic and the Catholic Church. It looks like there was a perception that the Church was supporting a return to monarchy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_convents_in_Spain_(1931)
I suppose you could claim that it was an excess comminted by a secularist movement that happened to be in a position of political power.
Such a claim could be challenged by its turn IMO, but not conclusively, at least not by me. In any case, it was not just secularism vs church, but also left vs right and republic vs monarchy (at least at first glance).
@ArtieE is right.
Can you post a link to this video or a transcript? Can you provide a direct quote of Christopher Hitchens saying what you claim he did?
FWIW, there is a difference between:
- pointing out the violent implications of an ideology that is promoted by people who don't engage in violence themselves, and
- trying to tar everyone who doesn't subscribe to a theistic ideology with the same brush, regardless of what ideology they actually subscribe to.
Not necessarily nihilism, unless one includes "eye for an eye" as a nihilistic belief.
So, then, by this standard, motivation would be the primary determining factor on how they're labeled. If that's the case, then there can't be any such thing as "atheist terrorism," since atheism was not the primary motive of the regimes in question (as mentioned by the OP).
I would agree that nationalism was probably the primary motive for WW1, started with a bond between Serbian and Russian nationalism (linked by common religion and shared ethnic heritage) when it clashed with German nationalism (which was more economically motivated than religious).
The definition for "terrorism" has been manipulated and played around with so much, it's not really that useful in defining much of anything these days (i.e. "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"). In any case, I don't think open war declarations or diplomatic effort would exempt them from being considered terrorists, not by any standard I'm aware of. By that standard, even those on the OP's list of so-called "atheist terrorists" would not qualify as terrorists, since they also made open declarations of war and through a lot of diplomatic effort.
Even groups like the IRA and PLO tried to go the diplomatic route and were rather open in their declarations. So, if open war declarations and diplomatic effort are enough to define a group as "non-terrorist," then that would cover just about everybody.
I'm not even sure that I would agree that war is better than terrorism. War can be far more widespread, wipe out entire cities, destroy infrastructure and target entire populations. I've never lived under the occupation of a hostile foreign army before, but that sounds a heck of a lot worse than the possibility of a few ragtag terrorists lurking in the shadows.
I agree. I don't think beliefs are dangerous, in and of themselves. But there are true believers who think that theirs is the "one true way" and fanatically oppose anyone who doesn't believe. Then there are those who may or may not believe, but use the belief as a vehicle for some other agenda - such as any monarch or Pope who claimed to be Christian, but didn't act like one.
Indeed, some might argue that even Hitler or Stalin didn't actually believe in the ideologies they espoused, but just used the public's beliefs as a way of gaining political power. They would just as easily do away with a "fellow believer" if it meant more power, so it doesn't really matter what they actually "believe" in.
Well, again, it would depend on how one defines "terrorist."
I've noticed a lot of wordsmithing goes on regarding these terms, particularly if they end in the suffix "-ist." I'm not referring to you, but I've noticed those who seem to go out of their way and make great effort to want to make their labels stick. The label of "terrorist" and other such terms are designed to make others believe that "this is an evil person," and it's reflective of a political culture where soundbites and rhetoric prevail over reasoned discussion. Some people get rather upset and defensive if they're questioned or challenged on the terminology they use, and this could be indicative of a disingenuous motive behind the practice of labeling people or organizations without any coherent or consistent definition.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
It seems that there were atrocities committed by both sides during the time of the Spanish Civil War.
This might be called political terrorism, but it isn't "atheist terrorism".
What is really the point of this thread?
Altfish
Veteran Member
Make the religious feel better about the atrocities caused in its name.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
It does look rather like that.
I did a thread on it, http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...sts-and-its-wider-social-implications.178499/
http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...sts-and-its-wider-social-implications.178499/
But the post you're probably most intrested in is on page 2, number #26 on there, where I deal with them specifically based on quotes.
People like to remind each other about their flaws.Maybe to remind atheists they are not specially perfect beings
And every group views themselves the most sorely abused....according to some, anyway.
It failed quite spectacularly at that.Maybe to remind atheists they are not specially perfect beings
Aye, but that's because we already know we're complete jerks...& we don't hide it.
It's like telling Eskimos that ice is cold.
Can we still use the word, "Eskimo"?
The 2nd sentence utterly defeats the 1st.No group is complete jerks. We are just humans
Jerk!