Is an Atheist Society not a secular society?

[LuisDantas]

What about the Atheist "Soviet Russia"? It is an Atheistic Society and a "secular" one also. Is it more equitable than say the UK or the US?
Regards

___________
Article 14
1. The Russian Federation is a secular state. No religion may be established as a state or obligatory one.
2. Religious associations shall be separated from the State and shall be equal before the law.
The Constitution of the Russian Federation

Those are two distinct subject matters.

Soviet Russia no longer exists as such, and while it did nominally promote atheism, it is plain to see that it never managed to somehow convince the people to be atheistic. All those Russian Orthodox Christians came from somewhere.

It had three Constitutions, from 1924, 1936 and 1977. It should be noted that apparently all of those nominally valued freedom of religion, although I don't think that translated very well into actual practice:

Constitution of the Soviet Union - Wikipedia



The current Russian Federation is in some ways the successor of Soviet Russia, and in other ways a departure from it.

It is that Federation that has the Article 14 that you quote above, and that may be consulted at Chapter 1. The Fundamentals of the Constitutional System | The Constitution of the Russian Federation as well.

The Russian Federation is (at least nominally) a secular state, as pretty much every government should strive to be. That in no way implies that its society is devoid of either religion nor belief in God. It just establishes that the government is not supposed to take part in religious matters.

 

[LuisDantas]

I would say that in theory you could say it was atheistic, but in spirit it was not. They replaced church dogma with their own new dogma. Most atheists I know are anti-dogma.

There is certainly something to that.

 

[Shad]

Is an Atheist Society not a secular society?
Secular means without regard to religious bias.

Please

Regard

_____________

This thread was conceptualized from Post #932 from our respected friend @Willamena .

No.

 

[Milton Platt]

Is an Atheist Society not a secular society?
Secular means without regard to religious bias.

Please

Regard

_____________

This thread was conceptualized from Post #932 from our respected friend @Willamena .

Well, in a way, I guess. There could still be religious bias, as in biased against religious ideas???

 

[paarsurrey]

I would say that in theory you could say it was atheistic, but in spirit it was not. They replaced church dogma with their own new dogma. Most atheists I know are anti-dogma.

So, one agree that in reality they were biased against religion and were not secular at all. There is no ban on "a no-god" society or Atheism to become extremists.
Please
Regards

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Can atheists be non-secular??? How and why?

Sure, atheism just means without belief in gods, but there are many religions which don't have gods, including some Buddhist paths, some Hindu beliefs, some Left Hand paths, some pagans, and so on. Atheists part of those religions might not have secular ideals, depending on the question being asked.

 

[icehorse]

So, one agree that in reality they were biased against religion and were not secular at all. There is no ban on "a no-god" society or Atheism to become extremists.
Please
Regards

If I understand your question: Technically atheism has nothing to do with politics. But in practice atheists tend not to be extremists. They could be, it's just not common.

I think that your Russia example confuses a lot of people. I believe that what's important to understand about those Russian leaders is that they were dogmatists. In other words, the MAIN idea driving them was that they had ideas that they demanded be accepted without question. In general atheists are the opposite, they welcome debate, they don't try to stifle debate.

This is a bad analogy, but apparently Hitler was a vegetarian. It would be misleading to say that we should be alarmed by vegetarians because they are known to start world wars. The fact that Hitler was a vegetarian has nothing to do with his other actions. So again, the key point to keep in mind about those Russian leaders is that they were dogmatists.

 

[paarsurrey]

If I understand your question: Technically atheism has nothing to do with politics. But in practice atheists tend not to be extremists. They could be, it's just not common.

I think that your Russia example confuses a lot of people. I believe that what's important to understand about those Russian leaders is that they were dogmatists. In other words, the MAIN idea driving them was that they had ideas that they demanded be accepted without question. In general atheists are the opposite, they welcome debate, they don't try to stifle debate.

This is a bad analogy, but apparently Hitler was a vegetarian. It would be misleading to say that we should be alarmed by vegetarians because they are known to start world wars. The fact that Hitler was a vegetarian has nothing to do with his other actions. So again, the key point to keep in mind about those Russian leaders is that they were dogmatists.

"In other words, the MAIN idea driving them was that they had ideas that they demanded be accepted without question."
But their position was of "no-God/s" and they never labelled themselves belonging to any religion or as a believer, and that is exactly. what the atheists hold. One cannot exclude them from the atheism or non-believer's group, just because they killed so many religious people, and include them in the believers or religion's group. No religion has to do anything with politics, they are just spiritual ideologies just to attain nearness to God or to inculcate attributes of God reflected immensely in nature and that requires no physical territories, necessarily.
Regards

 

[icehorse]

"In other words, the MAIN idea driving them was that they had ideas that they demanded be accepted without question."
But their position was of "no-God/s" and they never labelled themselves belonging to any religion or as a believer, and that is exactly. what the atheists hold. One cannot exclude them from the atheism or non-believer's group, just because they killed so many religious people, and include them in the believers or religion's group. No religion has to do anything with politics, they are just spiritual ideologies just to attain nearness to God or to inculcate attributes of God reflected immensely in nature and that requires no physical territories, necessarily.
Regards

if they were also vegetarians, would you condemn vegetarians?

 

[paarsurrey]

if they were also vegetarians, would you condemn vegetarians?

I don't get one exactly. Please elaborate.
Regards

 

[icehorse]

"In other words, the MAIN idea driving them was that they had ideas that they demanded be accepted without question."
But their position was of "no-God/s" and they never labelled themselves belonging to any religion or as a believer, and that is exactly. what the atheists hold. One cannot exclude them from the atheism or non-believer's group, just because they killed so many religious people, and include them in the believers or religion's group. No religion has to do anything with politics, they are just spiritual ideologies just to attain nearness to God or to inculcate attributes of God reflected immensely in nature and that requires no physical territories, necessarily.
Regards

Hi paarsurrey,

Yes, this is a tricky one, I'm happy to try to clarify. First of all I have to disagree when you say "No religion has to do anything with politics...". Well that's simply not true - but that's for a different discussion.

These Russian's FIRST GOAL was to impose THEIR DOGMA on the society. In order to do that, they had to remove the existing dogma, which was the existing religion. In other words, what was driving them was to force their dogma into the society. It wasn't so much that they were atheists, it was much more that they had their dogma as their primary goal.