Talk:State atheism/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about State atheism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

No USSR?

Why is there no mention of the Soviet Union in the article? Surely as they were the first Atheist state, and the most well known one there should be a lot about them. This article needs some serious work. --Hibernian 11:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The Soviet Union's aggression against religion is discussed in the article as it stands, but the note that Albania under Communist rule was the only explicitly atheist state is true, according to all sources I've read over the years. Have you any proof of the fUSSR explicitly being atheist? GeofFMorris 18:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Dubious claim regarding "Eliminating" Sunday.

Editors are trying to claim that Marxist/Leninism Soviets eliminated "Sunday" but this doesn't reflect what happened. See the source provided where it says "The new six-day week will be unstaggered, exactly like a capitalist seven-day week, but its holiday will seldom fall on Sunday. " OK sounds clear enough but what exactly does the source mean by "the holiday will seldom fall on Sunday" if Sunday was "eliminated" ? This is what I was getting at when I said it was WP:SYNTH and WP:OR as the source doesn't say that Sunday was eliminated !. The thing is that in 1918 Lenin finally moved Soviets to the Gregorian style calendar (the Russian Orthodox Church still ran on Julian dates) away from the Julian calendar. Thus "State atheism" harmonised Soviets to the rest of the world (I would argue that it was the Russian Orthodox Church that was the stopping calendar harmonisation). Many years later the 5 day week was introduced to improve industrial efficiency though in part the side effect was to stop the Sunday holiday which, when you think about it, was introduced by Lenin indirectly when he decreed that the Soviets would adopt the Gregorian calendar. Given "Sunday" is about the Sun God (Sunne), Monday the Moon (Mona Goddess, or Luna), Tuesday for Tyr (or Mars both gods), Wednesday for Woden (God), Thursday for Thor (I like these Gods), Friday for Freyja (yup a Goddess), and Saturday for Saturn (God, again)... I think the Soviets had more problems that just "sun" worship day and so that is why I called it WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as it has nothing to do with "State atheism" and more to do with Soviet anticlericalism. Now the French really did go to town on the calendar and *that* was about atheism. Please correct it to reflect what the sources say. Ttiotsw 11:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Go back a read it again... it clearly says "In only one respect the five-day week was an unqualified success, from the Soviet point of view. It did help to make people forget Sunday" <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,930406,00.html> if Sunday was still around how could they forget it. The week ends were eliminated and staggered five day weeks implemented, this did not work so they moved to a week with out Sundays instead going to a six day week. Since a seven day week is very important in regards to religious holidays and the sabbath and the Lords day- the only real purpose for such an odd work week is to do away with those days. As the article on wikipedia even says. If you like we can correct it to say "determined atheists" as the time news article says Hardyplants 12:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I said and like I tagged it - the entry is dubious. You have reverted my tag straight away without discussing it. It does not say "eliminated" but it says "the holiday will seldom fall on Sunday" which reads to me (and a 3rd view I imagine) that Sunday still kind of exists except it isn't always a holiday.

The source also ways "In only one respect ..." which to me reads that "one respect" was not the primary raison d’être for the change but the industry efficiency angle is the main reason. Ttiotsw 14:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Donald Tsang

Donald Tsang is the Chief Executive of Hong Kong. He is a catholic. I think that this should be mentioned in the text. It's difficult for religious people to hold an office in the Peoples Republic of China but it's not impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.246.15.153 (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

regarding the anonymous reversion by 68.96.86.172

Hey, 68.96.86.172, it's fairly impolite or revert changes without explanation. Let me explain the rationale behind the changes which you reverted a bit.

Prior to my changes, the article said:

:*Buddhists 8%, with more than 200,000 monks and nuns. This value is seen as extremely low because there are more than 16,000 Buddhist temples that do not maintain traditional congregations. :*Taoists, unknown as a percentage, there are more than 25,000 Taoist monks and nuns at more than 1,500 temples. Taoist belief is often intertwined with both Buddhism and traditional folk religions. :*Muslims, 1.5%, with more than 45,000 [[Imams]]. Other estimates are much higher. :*Protestant Christians, at least 13.8% with at least 20 million citizens worshiping in the more that 50,000 official churches. :*Catholics, about 1.5%.

Citing this source, which said in part:

There are 5.3 million persons registered with the official Catholic Patriotic Association (CPA), and it is estimated that there are an equal or greater number who worship in unregistered Catholic churches affiliated with the Vatican. According to official sources, the government-sanctioned Catholic Patriotic Association has more than 70 bishops, almost 3,000 priests and nuns, 6,000 churches and meeting places, and 12 seminaries. There are thought to be approximately 40 bishops operating "underground," some of whom are in prison or under house arrest. A Vatican representative estimated that there are 8 to 18 million Catholics in the country

My edit which you reverted changed the article to say:

:*Buddhists 8%, with more than 200,000 monks and nuns. This value is seen as extremely low because there are more than 16,000 Buddhist temples that do not maintain traditional congregations. :*Taoists, unknown as a percentage, there are more than 25,000 Taoist monks and nuns at more than 1,500 temples. Taoist belief is often intertwined with both Buddhism and traditional folk religions. :*Muslims, 1.5%, with more than 45,000 [[Imams]]. Other estimates are much higher. :*Protestant Christians, at least 13.8% with at least 20 million citizens worshiping in the more that 50,000 official churches. :*Catholics, about 1.5%.

which I believe more correctly reflects what the cited supporting source said than the article previously did.

It is always possible that I have made an error. If I have, please point out my error. In the meantime, I have re-reverted your reversion which lacked an edit summary explaining your reasoning. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Destroy old world.jpg

The image Image:Destroy old world.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Cambodia

The article states that "the only country to officially ban religion was Albania under Enver Hoxha." But didn't the Red Khmer do exactly the same? At least, Steven Erlanger from the NYTimes says so:[1].--Neptun88 (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Enver Hoxha

There are two different ways to say this. One is to state that Dawkins/Harris/whoever believes that state atheism isn't carried out in the name of atheism (I.E. Stalin and Pol Pot never said "I do this because I'm an atheist") and then point out that there is a specific example of a major figure explicitly labelling his country as atheistic and that his actions are atheistic. Or, it can be vice versa and point out that Enver Hoxha deliberately enforced atheism on his country and have the atheists say "This wasn't done in the name of atheism", which by giving them "the last word" so to speak makes it sound contradictory. I don't see how it's original research to point out cited facts in contrast to Dawkins' opinion.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

State Atheism and Poland

Though it is common ground in communist dictatorships to ban religion, there is evidence that Polish regime turned a blind eye on Polish Catholic Church regularly (see Tony Juds' "Postwar: A History of Europe since 1945", particularly part three) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieconomist (talk • contribs) 17:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

French Revolution and Commune of Paris

I would argue that some episodes of the French Revolution, especially the Terror regime, were the first documented historical example of State atheism. All churches were closed for several years and most abbeys were forcibly secularized by the State. Moreover, similar episodes in 19th century history, such as the Commune of Paris, tend to repeat or imitate the worst moments of the French revolution. Marx himself wrote a great deal about the Commune of Paris, which for him provided a model of atheistic communist government. Another possible example would be the government of Plutarco Calles in Mexico, who enacted such extreme secularism that many considered it at the time to be a form of State atheism. And too, during the Spanish Civil War, the Republican side executed so many priests and religious that it could qualify as an atheist regime. ADM (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't state atheism, the French revolution just replaced one religion with another, check out the "cult of the supreme being" Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 09:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Dawkins' viewpoint and rebuttal

I removed the italicized section from the article for discussion here:

However, Richard Dawkins argues that Stalin's atrocities were influenced not by atheism but by their dogmatic Marxism,[4] saying that while Stalin and Mao happened to be atheists, they did not do their deeds in the name of atheism. [5] In response to this, Christian writer Dinesh D'Souza says this type of reasoning "shows a gross ignorance of history."[16]

Full context from the D'Souza interview:

When you point out that atheist leaders have killed several orders of magnitude more human beings than Christian leaders, the usual rebuttal is that the atheists didn't commit their murders “in the name of atheism”. What is your response to that?

This is Richard Dawkins and it clearly shows what happens when you let a biologist out of the lab. It shows a gross ignorance of history. Communism was an explicitly atheist ideology. Marx was very eager to establish a new Man and a new society liberated from the shackles of traditional religion and traditional morality. Marx called religion “the opiate of the people” and he very much wanted to see religion removed from the face of the Earth, and he predicted it would be in the Communist utopia. Every Communist regime targeted religion, closed the churches, persecuted the priests, harassed the believers. This was no accident. So, for Dawkins to say that this wasn't being done in the name of atheism just defies rational belief. It's hard for me to believe an intelligent individual would even try to say that.

This type of viewpoint and rebuttal, using only primary sources, is exactly how not to write neutrally on a topic. Can independent, reliable sources be provided to support our inclusion of either viewpoint? --Ronz (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have two initial comments:

1) While we ask if "independent, reliable sources be provided to support our inclusion of either viewpoint?" we've only deleted one of the viewpoints. If we want to be consistent here, we should delete both.

2) We're not using either source to say that one side or the other is correct - we're using them to illustrate the arguments made by the two opposing sides. That's not an inappropriate use of primary sources - any more than it would be to quote Reagan to illustrate what Republicans have historically said about communism.

The text may not have made the best choice about which of D'Souza's words to quote (though I did take out the ad hominem recently), but there is a clearly expressed argument from history here that is explicitly made in response to Dawkins. If Dawkins' comments are included, this is appropriate to provide balance.

If we could find a good neutral source that surveys the arguments on both sides, that would be even better. Until we find that source, though, quoting recognized representatives of both sides in a neutral tone and a balanced way seems completely appropriate.EastTN (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Why was Dawkins'opinion kept in the article and D'Souza's booted? I agree with EastTN that either opinions on both sides of the argument shoud be presented, or none at all. I initially provided D'Souza's quote as a counter for Dawkins' infamously ignorant "moustache" argument for balance. The best solution would be to remove all of them. After all, a biologist with a vicious anti-religious agenda is hardly a reliable source on the murderous history of state atheism. A little impartial balance would be nice people.--Jesse (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggest drop importance to low.

The article is rated high which means, "The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding atheism.". IMHO, nope it doesn't: this is simply about Communism. Soviet Communism too which is pretty irrelevant nowadays anyway. Someone reading would get to hear about communism and miscellaneous despots but little about atheism per se. All the use is about anti-clericalism which is a different beast from atheism. A google search for "State atheism" for that matter gets 6,820 hits (compare this to "State religion" which has 706,000 or over 100 times, and heck I get around 1800 if you put my real name in quotes into Google and I'm a nobody). Ttiotsw (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ref for Routldge Handbook of Religion & Politics By Jeff Haynes misused.

With Routldge Handbook of Religion & Politics By Jeff Haynes on page 183 the actual text is,

...22 countries which lay behind the Iron Curtain could be designated Atheistic de jure, committed in Barrett's terms to 'formally promoting irreligion'. This meant typically that while the state was ostensibly seperated from all religions and churches, it was also 'linked for ideological reasons with irreligion and opposed on principle to all religion', claiming the right 'to oppose religion by discrimination, obstruction or even suppression' (Barrett 1982:96)

The problem is obvious: it says "could be designated" whereas we have "were de jure Atheistic". That is one heck of a difference. Actual de jure verses conjecture by Haynes based on his extrapolating Barretts definition about formally promoting irreligion to mean atheistic ? . There is no doubt that these communist states "formally promoting irreligion". This reference is describing irreligion not Atheism i.e. not "State atheism". The side-effect is atheistic but the article title is not "Atheistic states" and at best supports an article title of "State irreligion". Ttiotsw (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh puhlease! You are parsing words in an attempt to give them meaning they do not have. When the author says "could be designated" there is no reason to believe that he meant it as optional. He plainly means they were de jure atheistic states. You're really grasping for straws now. Mamalujo (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that we should use what the reference says i.e. we should use "could be" if it indicates possibility. To use "were" in this case is WP:SYNTH as it is advancing a position that the reference clearly does not make. They "were" "formally promoting irreligion" but this does NOT follow that they "were" Atheistic de jure. As a word "could" means that it indicates a possibility - this is a fairly basic dictionary definition.

We need to know what you are actually objecting to and what you want to stay. If you want "atheistic de jure" to stay then we need to say "could be" and if you want "were" to stay then we need to reword and say that they "were formally promoting irreligion". We can use the Haynes reference to that in both cases BUT we cannot use Haynes to support the current text. Personally I would go with "were" as it is more precise and (indirectly) I see Barrett that Haynes uses as a WP:RS so I see no objection in how Haynes supports what he says. What do you think about this compromise ? The alternative is to delete the whole sentence.

As a separate issue obviously it is the "Routledge' Handbook of Religion & Politics". I left the reference like that to show where I was looking. You won't object to us correcting the spelling when we correct the text ? Ttiotsw (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Errors in edit by an IP adding the French Revolution.

There has been an appallingly poor edit by some IP here [2] which has some glaring errors that even a most basic preview would find.

it is not Baron Anacharis Cloots but Anacharsis Cloots (no use of Baron and spell his name right !) Actually Cloots was beheaded so go figure.
was Cloots a militant atheist ? I thought he was more humanist given his support for the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1790,
proclomation should be proclamation,
17194 should be 1794 (to be consistent with the 1792) ,
the Temples of the Godess of Reason obviously it is Goddess i.e two 'd' in Goddess. This movement was in fact supposed to provide a balance to Robespierre. Both of the cults (Goddess of Reason and Robespierre's) were the outcome of the "de-Christianization" of French society so what we have written here is an anachronism and in fact the supporters of the Goddess of Reason were persecuted (as we know Cloots was executed).
The last sentence is WP:SYNTH as the War in the Vendee was about issues related to anti-clerical aspects of the republic, the Levée en masse and no doubt a zillion other issues.

Suggested corrections (I'll go out on a limb here even though I'll probably be accused of being a French Revolutionary because I've been to France)...

Fix spelling mistakes as above,
Delete Goddess of Reason sentence
Delete War in the Vendee sentence
Reword to show the "de-Christianization" of French society was already underway before the Cult of Reason and Goddess of Reason.

Looks like this WP:COATRACK is now a Charity shop based in Orange County. Ttiotsw (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

State atheism has one academic source, and that refers to the Soviet Union; this article is tendentious, and much of the material off-topic

Like the compiler of this article, I've found only one academic reference to the term "state atheism". That's the article by David Kowalewski, which notes that state atheism is a translation of a Russian policy that he calls "gosatiezm".

But there's a problem with this one citation. Gosatiezm wasn't the official policy of the Soviet Union. Nor was it the practice of the Soviet Union. Various kinds of repression were practiced by the Soviet Union, but persecuting some religious groups is not the same as atheism.

What was the official policy of the Soviet Union with regard to religion? According to the Soviet Constitution, Part IV, article 124, Russia observed separation of church and state, and guaranteed freedom of religion as well as freedom to speak against religion.

Now, of course we know that the Soviet Union didn't act according to its official policy. It persecuted most religions.

But it didn't persecute all religions. If its practice was driven by atheism, or by hostility to religion as such, then it would repress all religions equally, or at least those that had a god or gods.

But while in practice Soviet policy was to repress the Russian Orthodox Church in particular, plus other religions, mainly Christian and Islamic, that it felt were in opposition to, or in competition with, the Communist state, the Soviet Union tolerated and even supported other religious groups.

Citing the Encyclopedia Britannica article on the Renovation Church, a breakaway branch of the Russian Orthodox Church that had state backing under Stalin - we see that the Soviet State would support and back religious groups it saw as friendly to and compliant with the Communist government.

Therefore the issue, or principle, guiding Soviet policy on religious groups was not atheism. It was a cynical political judgement about who was a political threat or a political ally. If a religious denomination was prepared to cooperate with the authorities, then the Soviet authorities would support it. Or tolerate it, as the Soviet state tolerated the Russian Orthodox Church during World War II. (For proof of these points, see the Encyclo Britt article on the Renovation Church.)

So this article starts with a fundamental mistatement of Soviet policy on religion, and its driving force.

But the claims about the other Communist states, in relation to a supposed policy in those states called "state atheism", are simply unsupported. The references do NOT in fact claim that those countries had instituted a policy called, or corresponding to, "state atheism". The only reference to "state atheism" refers to a translation of a Russian Soviet policy, which was not the official Soviet policy on religion, nor the Soviet policy in practice.

The references to other Communist states do support the claim that mainstream religions, particularly Christianity, Islam and Buddhism were/are subject to repressive measures in those states. They'd be relevant to an article about religious persecution, or about the state of religious freedom, in those countries. But those references do not don't support the claim that those countries had a state policy called or corresponding to "state atheism", which is what this article is supposed to be about.

Without such references to a policy called, or corresponding to, "state atheism", those references are irrelevant to an encyclopedia article on "state atheism". And glossing over that point, as the article currently does, appears to be misleading.

Let's take China. China, like the former Soviet Union, has measures repressing some religious groups, though religious worship itself is allowed. Moreover, the Chinese Government supports some religious groups.

Therefore the decision on whether to repress or support a religious group, is not based on the Chinese Government's stance on gods. It;s based on the Chinese government's opinion of each religion's political influence.

That's why, for example, there are two Catholic Churches in China: the mainstream one, and the "Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association". The Chinese Catholic church is a Christian church; its doctrines include belief in the Christian God and Jesus. It worships the Christian God, and the Chinese government supports it, because it's friendly to the state. The head of the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association is senior in the Chinese Government. Now, other Christian churches may not like that church, but they shouldn't pretend that it doesn't exist, or that it's atheist. A lot of churches support the system of government within which they happen to operate.

The Chinese constitution, like the Soviet one, says nothing about "state atheism". It only says that it's a country in which church and state are separate. So again, the policy is not atheist, and the practice is not atheist.

The Chinese government does not allow religious freedom. Make no mistake. But the references provided to support the claim that it has a policy of "state atheism". They don't even use the term. Instead they show persecution of some religions, which is a different (and true) claim.

Even Albania, craziest Communist state of them all, never actually banned all religions. It banned the ones that Enver Hoxha said were foreign additions to Albanian culture (Christianity and Islam, mainly), but the Albanian state tolerated and even encouraged indigenous Albanian religions, which were mainly animist and pagan. So, again, we don't in practice have state atheism, we have state opposition to some religions, and support for others. See See the Wiki article, Religion in Albania.

Wiki should be internally consistent. And accurate.

The Burmese Marxist Government, on the other hand, is officially Buddhist. (ttp://www.ictj.org/en/where/region3/511.html) Which is not quite atheist; it's more like many small gods, in the Burmese case. Pol Pot of Cambodia, on the other hand, according to Prince Sihanouk who knew him for many years, didn't believe in god but did believe in heaven, and that he was getting guidance from heaven, which makes him a kind of religious believer. (http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/pot.html)

So, first, there is not a policy on religion that is common to all Communist states, though all seem to tolerate or support some religious groups while repressing the ones they see as greats.

Second, there is no policy, common to Communist states, or referred to outside of Russia, called "state atheism".

Third, the references cited in this Wiki article do not support the claim that there is a common policy called state atheism.

Therefore, the discussion about Marxism-Leninism would be relevant if (1) there were a policy, common to all states claiming to be based on Marxist-Leninist doctrine, called "state atheism", which there is not. (2) It might be relevant if there were references to "state atheism" in Marx, or Lenin. (The presence of Feuerbach and Freud in this article appears to be polemical, not informative.

The stuff about the French revolution is simply incoherent. There were two anti-Christian cults in post-revolutionary France. But "anti-Christian" is not "atheist". The "Cult of Reason" had a goddess, the "goddess of reason". Atheists don't set up cults and goddesses; though deists do. Moreover, atheism was never the policy of any French Revolutionary government, and that includes the brief hey-day of the Cult of Reason. Yes, the Cult of Reason organised desecration of Notre Dame, the church of a rival religion, Catholicism. But (1) they didn't declare France to be an atheist state, and (2) hating a specific religion, in this case Catholicism, doesn't make you an atheist. Religious people can and do hate other religions. Finally, the Reign of Terror was carried out under god-believing politicians like Robespierre, under the other deist cult, "th Cult of the Supreme Being".

Citing the religious polemicist McGrath as a "historian" in this context makes Wiki look ridiculous. (And it's probably best not to cite Dawkins either.)

The Cruikshank illustration shows that English opponents of the French Revolution claimed that it was an atheist revolution. If it were being used to illustrate the English reaction to the revolution it would be relevant. But it is not evidence to the views of the revolutionaries themselves. It's a great cartoon, but it is only misleading in this context, without an explanation. And since the entire French Revolution stuff is simply irrelevant to the question of "state atheism", it should just go.

123.3.155.173 (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The proposed edit does remove a great deal of text. But the problem with the article is (1) that it concerns a neologism, with only one source. (2) That source refers only to the Soviet Union. (3) The term "state atheism" does not in fact reflect the policy of the Soviet Union as set out in its constitution, and it does not reflect the practice of the Soviet Union. Citations provided in the proposed edit. (4) The citations provided to support the claim that other Communist states had a policy called or corresponding to "state atheism" do not, when checked, actually support that claim. (5) The claims concerning a supposed policy of "state atheism" in the Soviet Union and China are directly contradicted by the Constitutions of those states. That is, this article is an embarrassment for Wiki. It should only include things known to be true, and avoid direct untruths. (6) The discussion of the French revolution shows that the article is conceptually confused, so that any sort of opposition to any specific religion is being counted as "state atheism", even when that opposition comes from deists, who believe in a god. The discussion is conceptually incoherent. (7) The simplest solution is to note that the term has been mentioned in relation to the Soviet Union, though it does not accurately describe Soviet policy or practice. Then, to note that the Communist states have committed religious persecution, and do not allow religious freedom. Then, to send people to the relevant articles on each Communist state. (8) A simpler solution would be to delete the entire article, since it appears only to refer to a word in one article, which is not defined in that article, which refers only to a policy of the Soviet Union, and that does not describe Soviet policy accurately.

My edit was rife with technical errors, which I intended to fix. However it was a supported and logical edit that brings the discussion closer to Wiki standards.

123.3.155.173 (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Re the suggestion that the article be deleted, quite a few other articles link to it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There's still the fundamental problem with this article that this is inherently a matter of opinion. The only basic definition of state atheism is a state that is officially atheist - anything beyond that, such whether the definition includes or entails oppression of other religion, is a matter of opinion. And this article continues to present one POV as fact in the lead, whilst suppressing any alternative points of view as allegedly being unreliable sources. At least now we have Dawkins, but I see Harris has been removed. The counter arguments are only mentioned later on, whilst Kowalewski's opinion is put in the lead. The other opinions are clearly attributed as someone's argument, whilst his is presented under the weasel worded "has been defined" (although that was, at least, better than presenting it directly as a fact that we had before). I also disagree that the POV issues were resolved. Mdwh (talk) 10:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Praxis again: I've just followed the link provided, to articles that supposedly link to this one. I checked ten of them, at random, and searched for the words "state atheism" or a link to this article. Not one of those articles contained those words or a link to this Wiki article. So the problem of "many Wiki articles that link to this one" is probably not a big one in practice. But it wouldn't be hard to delete the links or re-direct them to the appropriate Wiki articles. Links are certainly no argument for keeping such a fundamentally flawed article. This article should be deleted because: (1) the article discusses a term that is rare except for its appearance in Wiki itself, and that has no agreed meaning; and (2) the term only seems to be used of the former Soviet Union, and even then the term does not describe either the official policy or the actual practice of the Soviet Union in respect of religion, as is proven by citing the relevant clause of the Soviet Constitution, and citing examples of the Soviet's tolerance and even official encouragement of some religious groups in practice; (3) the article claims, falsely, that the term applies to other communist states, but provides no support for that claim; moreover, checking the constitution and actual practice towards religion of the Chinese, Russian, Cuban, Communist Kampuchea and Albania revealed that in those cases the claims aren't just unsupported but simply false (I haven't checked Mongolia or North Korea yet; but I'd be astonished to find any evidence of a policy of "state atheism" either; (4) there's some stuff about the French revolution that is simply incoherent fantasy; (5) the article contains some useful citations of (polemical but valid) sources about persecution and lack of religious freedom in past and present Communist states. That information could be usefully added to the appropriate Wiki articles; (6) This article, with its links to "sources" like "The Twilight of Atheism", "The Delusion of Disbelief: Why Atheism is a Threat to your Life, Liberty and Happiness", is beyond mere inaccuracy. It is clearly not an encyclopedia article but a polemic argument.

The point is not to add polemics on the other side, from Dawkins or Harris or Hitchens or whoever. The point is to ask, "was there a doctrine called state atheism that was the policy, or the practice, of the communist regimes, or of the French revolutionary government?. The answer is, "No, there was not." This article contains some useful information of lack of religious freedom, and persecution of some religions, in Communist countries. But if "lack of religious freedom, or persecution of some religions" was a sign of atheist policy, then Iran would be classified as an atheist country, for the purposes of this article. This article confuses many different categories together and is incoherent. This article tends to discredit Wiki. It should be deleted. Who in Wiki does one raise this with?

123.3.148.144 (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I did a search on Google Scholar and the term state atheism (in quotes) returned 212 results. "Atheist state" returned 525. The assertion that the term is without academic support has no merit. The idea that this article has only one academic source is likewise ludicrous. Mamalujo (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Mamalujo (1) The Wiki article “state atheism” is supported by only one academic source that actually refers to “state atheism”. That’s reference (1), the piece by Dan Kowalewski. (I should have been clearer that that is what I meant.) The Wiki article also gives some academic sources about government persecution of some religious groups in a number of communist countries, which is a different topic from “state atheism”, as authoritarian states discriminate against particular religions for all sorts of different reasons.

Authoritarian states like the Communist states mentioned in the Wiki article, that harassed some religious groups while encouraging others, are obviously not acting out of “atheism”, or they’d oppose every religious movement and not just some. Instead, it is clear that those states are acting out of a desire to suppress groups that are able to provide a base for opposition to the state, while encouraging groups including religious groups that are friendly to the state. That’s Realpolitik, not “state atheism”.

(2) As I said, the term “state atheism” is rare. I found 190 references on Google scholar today. Many of Google scholar’s 190 supposedly “academic” references actually turned out to be religious polemics, not from academic publications. For example, “our implicit state atheism in public education, government and law is the intellectual and spiritual equivalent to candyfloss”. (From a blog called “Consciencelaws”, accessed through Google Scholar, today. He was talking about Canada.)

Or consider this: http://galliawatch.blogspot.com/2006/05/state-atheism.html There, Phillipe de Villiers (French anti-immigration politician who stood for President in 2007, getting 2.37% of the vote; the fascist National Front leader, Jean le Pen, accused de Villiers of stealing his policies) uses the term “state atheism” to mean the failure of the European constitution to "include an acknowledgement of the Judeo-Christian tradition".

So “state atheism”, outside of historical writing about the former Soviet Union, seems in practice to be nothing more than a rhetorical term meaning “any government policy that shows less deference to religion generally, or to a specific religious group, than the person using the term would like”.

Comparison? I found 558 references on Google scholar for “state Christianity”. That’s more than twice as many as “state atheism”, but that still makes it a rarely used term. “State Christianity” doesn’t have a Wiki entry, and nor should it have. But a closer analogy is “Christian fascism”, a term that got 60 Google Scholar hits today. It’s analogous to “state atheism” because it’s a term sometimes used with a specific meaning, but more often just used for rhetorical effect. That term doesn’t need a Wiki entry either. (“Religious insanity” got 363 Google Scholar hits. Does that mean that "religious insanity" should have its own Wiki entry?)

I’ll follow with more detail on why this article should be – at most – reduced to a stub noting that it’s the English for “gosateizm” and referring readers to the article on religion in Russia, or - more appropriately - simply deleted.

123.3.131.184 (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not correct that only one of the sources uses the term "state atheism". Just to name a few Nielsen, Haynes, Greeley, Wolak, Popielovsky, McGrath, Aikman, Hertzke, and Atkin all use the term "state atheism". As to the nonexistence of the article "state Christianity", it seems the more appropriate analog would be "state religion", an article which does exist. You mentioned the term "Christian fascsim" implying that because such an article does not exist that this one should not either, but there is an article "clerical fascism". Mamalujo (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Title Issues

State atheism opposes religion?

Shouldn't this be called "State irreligiosity" or something? I'd think State atheism would be the State's opposition to holding a belief in any gods, not opposition to religion (lacking religion = irreligious; lacking belief is any gods = atheism). --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 18:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If the concept was being named anew, maybe "State Atheism" might not be the chosen term. However, "State Atheism" does have an established meaning, and it is as described on the page. Sometimes the language is not as precise as we would like. Never mind, eh? --Dannyno 09:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought that was the case... oh well. --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 19:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Curious if State_religion can also be added ?. After all it is a strategy to have a state religion to persecute other religions. If State atheism is listed as a "By strategy:" then so should State_religion be listed as a strategy. Ttiotsw 19:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that every state in history which has been, and currently is, officially atheist has and does persecute religion, and violently so in every case, whereas in the case of state religion, at least modernly, there is commonly, but (granted) not always, no form of persecution at all. For example, England, Malta, Monaco, Denmark and Costa Rica all have official regligions but it cannot be said that the state religion is a strategy of persecution. State atheism by contrast is in every case a strategy of persecution. Certainly there is the speculative possibility that a day may come when an atheist state does not persecute people (Some atheists may even think it likely; I doubt it). When that day comes (and hell freezes over) edits will have to be made, but we are dealing with facts, not fantasy, and history, not some alternative history. Nonetheless, the facts are that every atheist state in history has persecuted religion. The same cannot be said for state religion.Mamalujo 20:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What you said about every atheist state persecuting religion may be true, but that still just means that state atheism coincides with religious persecution, not that it is a method of religious persecution. If most capitalist countries also happened to practice slavery, would that make capitalism a "method" of slavery?

The close correlation between state atheism and religious persecution is more likely because most religions teach the existence of at least one god, so atheists are much more commonly irreligious then religious (in other words, irreligious atheists are probably much more common then religious people who are atheists). Since all anti-religious people are presumably irreligious, this in turn means that anti-religious people are probably more commonly atheists then theists, so anti-religious rulers are the among those most likely to adopt state atheism.

Another likely factor is that having government endorse any point of view on gods is a way of telling people who don't have that view that they are unwelcome in that country, so state atheism is probably more likely to be adopted in places where theists are unwelcome.

In other words, anti-religious people are more likely to be atheists, who in turn are more likely to adopt state atheism. Web wonder (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish Mamalujo, the title should be state anti-religion, as atheism is a simply lack of belief in a deity. many people are anti-religious and some are atheist. past and present. Pavlosnumerouno 21:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on. I didn't see this banner had been added here, and that "State Atheism" had been added to it. Even if your statement is true, though, that's not a valid argument for putting it on the banner. The question would be if reliable sources agree that state atheism is by itself a form of persecution, and then, in a way that state religion isn't. I'm pretty sure you can't make the case for either of those. If state atheism is a form of persecuion, though, then clearly state religion is another strategy. The whole concept of "strategies," by the way, is a bit silly; is there not a better word? "By method" would seem better. Mackan79 21:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

But the State religion of England does lead to discrimination (and persecution). For instance the line of succession for royalty expressly excludes Catholics and the Blasphemy laws only apply when opposing the Church of England rather than religion in general. Thus the State religion of England (Wales etc) is discriminatory and is used to persecute others. It is true that it hasn't been persecuting people recently, but it still can legally discriminate. Ttiotsw 08:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Per previous discussions, the contiued addition of these banners and categories is clearly not appropriate. These articles need to be WP:NPOV, not to reflect personal views. I fully respect the view that these regimes have been repressive, but that isn't a valid reason to add these types of categories, unless you did it for all types of government/religion interaction. I wouldn't really mind that, but I think it makes more sense not to, considering the implication that will remain on any specific page. Mackan79 19:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not terribly opposed to having this remain stated as "state atheism," but I think we should consider adding a brief section ("Critisms?") on the distinction between atheism and anti-theism (assuming the claims made here are to be kept). An user recorded from an IP address made an excellent post further down (see "State atheism has one academic source, and that refers to the Soviet Union; this article is tendentious, and much of the material off-topic") about how these governments not only stated they didn't persecute religions, but, in practice, persecuted only the religions seen as a threat to the central power structure. It's important to note that this practice is not correctly described as either atheism or even anti-theism, since the cause for persecution was control over the masses via the destruction of organizations perceived as threats, rather than a hatred for religion, its tenets, or its adherents. However, since the term "state atheism" is probably something for which people will search within this context, I think simply adding a section criticizing the use of the term "atheism" to negatively, and erroneously, portray atheists as inherently aggressive toward religion would suit the article well. > MisterDub (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

State atheism is the official rejection of religion in all forms by a government in favor of atheism.

What are we basing this definition on? What were the sources used to come up with this idea? Angry Christian (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I poked around for a definition in an encyclopedia or dictionary, and did not find one. A good article begins with a good, well-supported definition. This article lacks that. Nick Graves (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, I could not find one either. So what should our next step be? Also, when I look at this article I can't help but think we're talking about militant atheism as expressed in a communist/totalist/marxist state and that "state atheism" is a somewhat inaccurate description. All these countries have anti-religious views, does that constitute simple atheism or would militant atheism be a better descriptor? Angry Christian (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nick Graves said: "A good article begins with a good, well-supported definition." This article begins with a concise, easily understood definition. However, Nick argues that the definition does not seem to be well supported. I poked around just a little and found this source where it is possible to infer a definition, this source which discusses that definition a bit, and this source where an author who spoke of state atheism in a book seems unable to explain what he thinks the term means. Perhaps it might work to explicity say "State atheism, for purposes of this article, is a term describing the official rejection of religion in all forms by a government in favor of atheism." -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The editorial oversight in the Infidels article probably doesn't pass muster for a reliable source, especially given the original publication date (1997)--the Infidels have more of a peer review system in place now, but I doubt this one went through that process. The blogspot post isn't usable as a source, though the book it mentions may be. I find the author's impartiality on the matter highly suspect--he considers "the refusal of Europe, at the time of the debate on the European Constitution, to include in the Constitution an acknowledgement of its Greco-Latin and Judeo-Christian origins" to be some sort of state atheism. That's wholly different from state atheism practiced in communist nations--there is no promotion or imposition of atheism in such an action (or rather, lack of action). Eastern Europe, Russia and Central Asia 2003 is more promising, though it would take some sorting through to get what we need. It's much like a lot of the articles I found in JSTOR, which mentioned state atheism, but which didn't necessarily define it or treat in any specific depth. We need to do better than "for purposes of this article, state atheism is..." It's not up to us to define the term (that would be original research), but to accurately relay what reliable sources say about it. Nick Graves (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is a problem with this article. I suspect there are plenty of people who do use "state atheism" in this way, but I also suspect it is a matter of POV - other people such as myself might say that the things described in this article are antitheism, and not atheism. The article also claims "State atheism should not be confused ... with state secularism" which also seems a matter of opinion - to me, a state rejecting theism is synonymous with state secularism, where as a state persecuting religious people is not state atheism. Mdwh (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Who are these people ?. I never really Googled for it before but "State atheism" seems to get Wikipedia and clones plus the odd mention e.g.[3] (which is talking about secular states (French style). It certainly is sounding like a neologism. To me the article should be renamed to State anticlericalism. Ttiotsw (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge/redirect to Anti-clericalism might be better (as we already have that article, and "state anticlericalism" may be a neologism too?) On that note, this article claims "State atheism should not be confused either with anti-clericalism" - I presume the point being made is that persecuting individuals for their personal belief is not anti-clericalism. But any restriction of religious organisations in public seems to come under the definition (and indeed communism is covered, albeit briefly, in the anti-clericalism article). Mdwh (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got to disagree. It's a term with significant use within the discipline of political science (plenty of articles found at JSTOR), and an obvious analogue of state religion. It's a direct translation of an official Soviet policy (gosateizm) that was emulated in various other communist nations. Whether one agrees that "state atheism" is a legitimate manifestation of atheism as such is immaterial to its legitimacy as a political term referring to real policies in communist nations. The article in its current form is definitely still slanted and in great need of better sourcing, but there is enough coverage of the term in reliable sources to craft a good article under this title. I've come across a number of articles in peer reviewed journals that can be used to put this article on more solid footing, and intend to make improvements as I have time. Nick Graves (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't access the source [4] so I don't know what it actually says to support the term "state atheism"? Either way, we really need some statements that whether this can be described as state atheism is a matter of opinion - I'm sure Dawkins and others have argued that it is not atheism. I'll try to dig up some quotes, or maybe we can borrow from Criticism_of_atheism#Atheism_and_totalitarian_regimes. Mdwh (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Related to this is the issue that persecution of religion is identified as being something typically associated with "state atheism" (does this mean that "atheist states" typically persecute the religious, or simply that "state atheism" by definition only refers to cases where religions are persecuted?) Consider State religion - imagine the controversy if someone edited the lead to say that state religions typically persecuted other religions or the non-religious? Even though this is true, perhaps far more so than state atheism, there's not a mention in the lead.

I believe the lead needs to clarify:

What the term "state atheism" is typically used to refer to, along with reference to those who disagree with labelling such things as "state atheism".
A mention of secular state, and how they compare.

(My guess would be that whether they are different is simply a matter of semantics, but "state atheism" tends to have negative connotations, which secularism does not.) Mdwh (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

And I still can't access the source [5]. Can anyone else? If not, we need another reference for this. Mdwh (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It works for me. I saved the image of it to imageshack[6], but I don't know if that helps any.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it seems to be working for me now, not sure what happened. Mdwh (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Should we not also attribute the definition in the lead to David Kowalewski? And was he a theist or atheist, so we can mention that too? Mdwh (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Dawkins and Harris

In what way are they not a reliable source? What is written is clearly stated as being attributed to them - is the editor claiming that they didn't make these statements?

So, an attributed statement is considered not reliable and biased, yet this article can happily claim that persecution is due to state atheism as fact, even though that is also a POV? I'm reverting, and tagging this article as POV until this and the above issues are resolved. Mdwh (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Though a reliable source I would question the relevance of the Harris-quote. He seems to argue against the notion that communism was dangerous because it is an atheist ideology. However, he does not talk about the organized persecution of religious communities in Communist states. And by the way, it is really interesting that from all possible sources you chose to cite an antireligionist who says things like "It is time we recognized that belief is not a private matter" (in The End of Faith).

But anyway the quotes are much too long and that of Harris might even be a copyright violation. I'll add the Unbalanced-template.--Neptun88 (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree the article is unbalanced - it's unbalanced in the direction of those who label these acts as being due to "state atheism". I'll move the tag accordingly.

I cited Harris because it was easiest to take it from Criticism_of_atheism#Atheism_and_totalitarian_regimes. If you have other sources that criticise the idea that this is due to state atheism, then I'd be happy to see those put there too (or instead).

As you can see in the reference, he is responding to the claim "Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.", and starts "People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief." So I would say that Harris is disputing that the atrocities were due to atheism, and not "the notion that communism was dangerous because it is an atheist ideology". Similarly with Dawkins, his point is about people who claim that the atrocities in communist countries were due to state atheism.

As for "copyright violation", this is stretching it I feel - see Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text - however, I am fine with removing the quote in the interest of simplification, since that quote can be found in the reference anyway. Does that satisfy it being unbalanced - two sentences versus an entire article? Mdwh (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with this brief summary of his point of view although your statements about the context also indicate that he seems to speaking about Communist and Fascist atrocities in general, not specifically about the state of religious freedom in Communist states.

Regarding the controversy whether the persecutions were carried out due to "state atheism": Hoxha's regime, for example, explicitly proclaimed that Albania had become "the world's first atheist country".[7] Thus, the regime has specifically linked the destruction of mosques and churches with the purpose of spreading atheism. So what about this connection does appear disputable to you?--Neptun88 (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with Dawkins and Harris being cited at all. They are highly POV pop sources. If the point the editor wants to make is valid, find a reliable scholarly source which is not so questionable which makes the same point. If a reliable source can't be found for the point, all the more reason why it should not be included.Mamalujo (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

POV is not an issue, because it is clearly attributed as being their opinion. Indeed, the whole reason they are mentioned is to give their point of view, in contrast to the point of view that such persecution is due to "state atheism". Whether the point is valid is not is irrelevant - the article does not claim that the point is "valid". Just as many of the criticisms in criticism of atheism are not valid. The points are mentioned not because they are valid, but because they are notable.

Your edits are POV, as you wish to only present the viewpoint that you agree with. What is more of concern is that the lead definition of this article is presented as fact rather than attributed. Where is your evidence that the author for the citation is a "reliable scholarly source which is not so questionable"?

Anyhow, if I did find another source, the very fact that they express a viewpoint that you disagree with would mean you would dismiss that source too as being POV. The authors are notable in the context of atheism, and the BBC is a reliable source for the viewpoint being expressed. Mdwh (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that they are not reliable sources on governments or history, they are notable for their opinion maybe- but that does not make then so for any page of politics, governments or history. You should locate a notable and reliable source that is an authority in on this topic- not a source that just has an veiw on the topic. Hardyplants (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Harris and Dawkins have both written extensively about history, atheism, religion, etc. Your attempt to keep both of these modern and important voices silenced in this article is laughable. Your reasons are transparent. Let me guess, Hardyplants you are a Christian, yes? Both Harris and Dawkins should be quoted extensively in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

State atheism vs Secular State

Worth mentioning the difference between the two? Alastairward (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

From what I've seen, it is not unusual to encounter persons who are under-informed in this area (perhaps such persons are reading the article to improve this situation). I think that it would be useful to work a statement similar to the lead sentence of the Secularism article into the lead paragraph of this article, and to wikilink that article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I was lazy and copied in the blurb from the Secular State article instead. Alastairward (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the section because not only was it missing a source which connected it to state atheism, but it was also completely without sources. The secular state article itself could use some work. No sense in importing that sloppy material to here, especially if there is no source which connects that subject to this one. I'm not opposed to a properly sourced section being introduced if reliable sources deal with the connections and distinctions between the two subjects. Mamalujo (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Title is wrong and needs to be fixed

Atheism, anti-theism, secularism, anti-clericalism, anti-religion, are all pretty clearly defined on wiki. "State atheism", as the title, is an incorrect use of the term. It is a combination of "state"(a governed nation, see state) and "atheism"(a lack of belief ...). It literally is secularism, or the lack of a state from being religious or believing, and does not contain the idea that the state hates religion and suppresses it or fights it/destroys it. That, is by very definition, "state anti-theism" or "state-sponsored atheism" and this is what the title should be.

However!

Although the current title is wrong, it is understood in common usage and herein lies the problem. Sources need to be found that more clearly define the definition of 'state atheism' and the positions of 'state-sponsored atheism' or 'state anti-theism' other than what this Kowalewski guy thinks(there looks to be only one source for the current definition). The article basically needs to be changed like this:

Title: "state-sponsored atheism or state anti-theism is ...", or something like that, and a search for "state atheism" redirects to this page.

There needs to be, in the first section, something that basically states "state-sponsored atheism is 'blah blah blah' But, in common usage the term 'state atheism' is the promotion of state anti-theism, and Kowalewski defines it in this manner.

The title is wrong and it needs to be fixed. However, there needs to be a section in there that states that many people understand 'state atheism' to be everything that 'state antitheism' actually is.(Razarax (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC))

State atheism is not the same as state secularism. Notwithstanding your personal preferences for terminology and taxonomy, this article is based on reliable sources and uses the terminology found in them, not your terms. Mamalujo (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit, Mamalujo (talk) , this article is based on a flimsy definition and it's nothing but propaganda. You can find not4ewaothy propagandist who will say what you want all day, but that does not make this article any less bullshit. The title is wrong and misleading and you fucking a john know it. YOU are a member of the same church that has murdered far more people that Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot combined. Your church is permanently stained by the millions of innocents murdered in the name of the Pope and church. This article is based on religious bullshit, propaganda and utter nonsense. To suggest otherwise is yet another insult.

Shouldn't antitheism be a much better word than atheism

Considering the word "atheism" means lack of belief and that this article is explaining something that is against religion, so shouldn't antitheism be a much better word for this? As it describes the belief of going against religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borridd (talk • contribs) 02:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the term fails to accurately describe the policies listed within; however, we are dealing with a somewhat-established term. I personally think the article should be renamed "State-sponsored atheism," as that is the term I've heard most often, but it's important that we keep our POV out of it and let the sources do the talking. If you have references to support a change in the title, please add them and fix it. MisterDub (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV issues

NPOV

My edits were reverted [8] [9] (and one of those edits goes further, also removing the pre-existing mention of Dawkins). It seems that claims against atheism are allowed without any sources whatsoever - and any request for them is deleted without explanation. Whilst cited sources on the opposing side are deleted as being "unreliable".

This is handled far better at Criticism of atheism - though even there, people are concerned about undue weight, see Talk:Criticism_of_atheism#Undue_weight.

So:

Where are the sources for defining state atheism in such a way (compare with say, the definition of state religion, where we do not lead with defining it as "State religion is the official rejection of all other forms of religion by a government in favor of one particular religion", and nowhere do we list similar atrocities of trying to outlaw other religions, be it the destruction of monastries by Henry VIII, or the outlaw and persecution of other religions in Islamic and African Christian countries.

If one side is being put up with no attribution, then why is any rebuttal to these weasel-worded ideas being removed, even when they are attributed?

Why is this article different to Criticism of atheism? Or is it just that this article is easier to WP:OWN than one that has more editors watching it? In particular, since this is labelled as the "main" article, I would expect more coverage here. Instead, whilst Dawkins and Harris are covered in the other article section, in this article any mere mention of them at all is removed!

Since both these articles cover the issue, I ask editors watching both of these articles to discuss these issues (either here, or there under Talk:Criticism_of_atheism#Undue_weight), to try to come to some consensus, and consistency, about what these articles should be about. Mdwh (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV again

Given the discussions above, I've added an NPOV tag to the article. The article needs to be based primarily upon secondary sources written by experts. --Ronz (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for sources? Can we find reasonable secondary sources that are truly neutral, or at least reasonable secondary sources representing multiple points of view? EastTN (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we should lose Dawkins, Harris and D'Souza. They are not particularly qualified/reliable and are very polemical/POV writers. D'Souza is the closest to a RS - he was a White House policy analyst and a fellow at both Stanford's Hoover Institution and the American Enterprise Institute. But in the interest of balance and NPOV, I think we should lose them all. They are more popular than scholarly writers and are highly biased. Mamalujo (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

How does being policy analyst make on a authoritative figure on the opinion of how such events are related to atheism? As I say above, the big problem here is that these are not points of facts, but opinions, so all we can do is list notable points of view. D'Souza isn't trying to claim what people's points of view are, he's simply giving his own. And if we scrap the referenced viewpoints, then what do you propose to put in their place? Without references, trying to claim that these events are due to "state atheism" would be in violation of WP:NOR.

I'm wondering if this article is better split up and covered elsewhere - the criticism that these events are due to state atheism can be covered in the appropriate article criticism of atheism. Meanwhile, the factual events themselves can be neutrally covered in relevant articles. Thoughts? Mdwh (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the article be sourced from reliable sources, not from highly polemic pundits who don't have any particular expertise in political science or in the interplay of religion and state. Prior to the introduction of these highly charged opinions which only serve as POV magnates, the article was doing quite well. If the views are sufficiently notable, they can be obtained from a RS. Mamalujo (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Mdwh - I don't know. It seems to me that this article is talking about the concept of state atheism, as a parallel to the concept of an established religion or State religion. Offhand, I can't think of any other articles that quite get at that. As for using the establishment of "state atheism" or acts committed in its name to criticizeor challenge atheism as a belief system or ideology, I agree that it should go into Criticism of atheism. I don't have time to look right now, but I think it is there in at least summary form. What does seem fair game for this article is any back-and-forth about whether there is such a thing as state atheism and what its effects are. To the extent we reference Dawkins, Harris and D'Souza for on that point (did these states really "establish" atheism and what actions did they take to do so?) it seems fair to do it here.

I agree - I have no inherent objection to such an article on the concept of state atheism. I think this sounds a good idea - we move the criticism material to the criticism article, and keep this article on basic neutral facts, modelled alongside state religion? I have no problem with mentioning supression of other religions, but here it is listed as "typically" part of the lead definition, and covered extensively, giving WP:UNDUE weight, compared with state religion where suppression of other religions is not mentioned at all, as far as I can see. Nor does that article have any of the criticisms that people might make of the concept of state religion, or religion in general (and I think it's right for the article not to cover it, as we cover it better elsewhere). Mdwh (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, discussing a connection between state atheism with some form of opposition to religion may be a necessary part of the concept - otherwise, you don't have an established atheism, you simply have a secular state that's neutral with respect to religion. For the concept of "state atheism" to mean anything beyond "secular state" - and I think the sources using the phrase do have something more in mind - it has to go beyond neutrality regarding religion to some sort of bias against religion. I agree that the article doesn't have to dwell in graphic detail on stories of persecution, but it needs to explain what the concept is and how it differs from government neutrality. (I also think the article on "establishment" of religion should at least acknowledge that "establishing" one religion means that the government prefers it over others, and at least in the past has typically involved a bias against other religions that in many cases did extend to active efforts to discourage or suppress them - again, without wallowing in tales of persecution.) EastTN (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Mamalujo, it seems to me that these sources can be reliable for certain purposes - specifically, to document the arguments made by prominent atheists and prominent critics of atheism. I agree that better sources would be better (isn't that a tautology?) - though even if we had them illustrating the points of view by a couple of good quotes by prominent representatives of each, like Dawkins and D'Souza, might still be useful. EastTN (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What would constitute a "reliable source", given that, as I say, I believe that this is inherently going to involve matters of opinion? And as I say above, I disagree that a "political scientist" is any better position to be an authority on the issue of atheism here. "Prior to the introduction of these highly charged opinions which only serve as POV magnates, the article was doing quite well" - I disagree, prior to the introduction, this article was unsourced, which is not at all better. It violates WP:V and WP:NOR. Mdwh (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You're not going to tell me that it's harder to make this article NPOV than the articles on Nazism or whatever? All we need to do is describe in the article what State Atheism regimes are/were, and what the literature says about them. Is that so hard to do? --Dannyno (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If it is thought essential to include material on how the implications of state atheism for the legitimacy or credibility or whatever of atheism have been debated, then why not have a short section doing just that? NPOV is maintained by explaining the nature of the dispute. To my knowledge, this might consist of several points. These days it is polemically common (pace Dawkins) to deny that the repression of religion involved in State Atheist regimes is either the responsibility of atheism as an ideology (in other words, it is attributed to something else). I can find examples in the literature from, say, the 1950s, of atheists denying that, say, the USSR was repressive against religion. So it would be possible to pick out some key disputants on "either" side, assuming two sides, trace the debates across time, and so forth, without committing the article to saying that "atheism" requires any particular view from its adherents. Dawkins is a major atheist polemicist, fair enough to include his opinion. And why not go back and pick out, say, JBS Haldane on the subject. Or, from a different angle, Bertrand Russell - he and others used the concept of political religion in this context. If there is anything in the literature that helps with this,or does the job for us, all the better. Come on, we can do this. --Dannyno (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look much POV to me. Most of the article is like "State X declared itself atheist (reference) and did a, b, c (references)". That also should be the main content of the article.

Interpretations why state X did so can be moved to a different section. Dawkins and D'Souza are not political scientist, they are not important sources for such a section.

Please NPOV the article quick, so it can be translated. Shouldn't take much.

-- 89.196.65.168 (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Dawkins (and Harris) are WP:RS on the subject of "Gods as fictional entities". So whilst they may not be political scientists nor experts in theology where it comes to wanting an expert in the field of god-as-a-delusion or a sound bit from an "atheist" then the first person anyone would call is Dawkins. Next on the list would be people like PZ Myers or James Randi. These people are all well known in the field of scepticism and anti-kookery with Dawkins being the top for opinions about god. D'Souza is also as reliable a source on the obverse of Dawkins position about God (though I don't know what D'Souza says about all the other few thousand gods - perhaps D'Souza just doesn't believe in them too like Dawkins). With D'Souza though you must watch out that he is talking about "Atheism" because he conflates communism with atheism but for the links we have I think in this case he is not confused. It's not like this is a science with a very clear criteria for what is objective; religion, and politics, are subjective and products of human culture. What is a reliable source is what our culture deems a representative view of the subject. Dawkins and Harris are representative given how society recognises them. Ttiotsw (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

neurtrality disputed

im surprised this page hasnt been flagged with disputed neutrality. if i didnt know any better, i would say that this article was written by some religious extremist in an extreme capitalist country because it tries to make state atheism look like a bad thing. they try to portray one side of the story, and that is the restrictive side of it, but it does not talk about liberating peoples minds from religion. religion itself is controlling, restricting, tells people what to think and how to think, and does not allow for people to think for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.36.29 (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

POV depiction of atheism in general

I find the wikipedia description of atheism to be loaded with POV. There is an article about militant atheism, yet hardly comparable entries for militant christians or the like. It is very easy to find detailed discussion of atrocities linked in some way to atheism, often through totalitarian communism. So for example on the anti-theist page there was long discussion of someone absolutely wanting Stalinism to be mentioned there as well. Furthermore this article is longer and more extensive than the discussion of discrimination and violent persecution of atheists, while the opposite is the case for example for christianity. Atrocities in the name of religions are often not prominently linked when discussing the belief systems yet they are pushed into prominent positions when discussing atheism.

I have the distinct impression that some people want to push the POV that atheism is scary and dangerous and that this biases the presentation of the topic on wikipedia throughout. This article is yet another example.

To give a simple example of subtle POV pushing:

"Although brief, the French experiment was particularly notable for the influence upon atheists Ludwig Feuerbach (who called religion an opiate before Marx[15]), Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx."

First off the opiate quote of Marx is routinely quoted out of context, to make atheism more scary.

Here is how it is presented in this article:

"Marx saw religion as the "opium of the people" in the sense that it was used to control the masses."

However, from the context of Marx writing it is much more likely that he meant it as "sedative drug to cope with misery" rather than a mechanism for control in the quoted passage.

Here is the context of the quote as found on wikipedia:

"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness."

Marx's quote is about relieving real suffering and not about abolishing control. It in fact states that one should not frivolously abandon religion without relieving the condition that requires it.

Feuerbach's position is poorly represented by that quote that clearly insinuates that (a) the opiate quote is negative and (b) hence Feuerbach is a negative figure.

The source cited is a theologian who is known for his critical position with respect to atheism. I have seen this in other Wikipedia articles where a one-sided source is used to present a seemingly historic neutral position. Unfortunately the fix that is needed is something that goes through a range of articles on atheism to get to a state where it's NPOV.

For example articles about religions which were state mandated do not contain statements like this:

"With the exception of Poland, state atheism resulted in a decline in religious practice in Catholic countries."

Yet we do not read in the article on the Anglican Church that

"With the exception of east wales, state anglicanism resulted in a decline in other religions and non-religious practices in England."

This is another example of the imbalanced presentation of atheism, trying to present it as a cultural loss. Yet in discussion of state churches we do not get:

"Country X and Y, both formerly practitioners of state Catholicism, are today some of the most catholic areas of the planet. Only 16% of X, and 19% of Y do not believe in the Christian God, though at least one in two believes there is "some uncertainty or room for doubt."

While mandated religious practice is not presented as a deficiency, non-religious attitudes are.99.88.82.39 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC).

Proposition to add a section distinguishing atheism, antitheism, secularism, and anti-clericalism

In an effort to resolve the POV issues with this article, I think a section criticizing the use of the term "atheism" to describe an entity opposed to religion (i.e. anti-religious or antitheist) would be appropriate. Perhaps we could add a "Criticism" section or one with a more specific title, such as "Objections to used terminology"? I think it's important to segregate these definitions, specifically covering the definition of atheism to clarify the common misconception that all atheists believe no gods exist. MisterDub (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

North Korea

What with this country? IlluminatiX (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to follow up on the DPRK (a.k.a. North Korea), a quick search reveals several articles like this one from Foreign Policy that states that Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il are revered as gods in NK.

See, e.g.,

"North Koreans revere Kim Il Sung as God, and Kim Jong Il as Jesus. They mark this year as 97, the number of years since the Great Leader’s birth." Foreign Policy article (Sorry for preview only, if you don't have a subscription. But you should get the idea.)

"Marshal Kim Jong Il is the sun god of human history..." LA Times article

'Perhaps the apposite comparators for the Kims are less V.I. Lenin and Josef Stalin or Mao Tse-tung and Deng xiaoping than Moses and Joshua or Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, no offense intended to any party. Lest any readers think such comparisons are over the top, recall Norlh Korean propaganda that describes Kim Jong-il “as a contemporary god," “superior to Christ in love, superior to Buddha in benevolence, superior to Confucius in virtue, and superior to Mohammed in justice,” and, ultimately, “the savior of mankind."' Google Books preview

How can a country that establishes its ruler(s) as gods be considered as sponsoring "state atheism"?

This is a logical contradiction. Is there a source that says NK is an atheist state? As far as I can determine, the only source listed in the article for NK says nothing about the country being an atheist state.

pkoden (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Some googling turned up this, which says, "By the 1990s, the only States in the region where the majority of the population professed no religious belief were North Korea and the People's republic of China.", citing (O'Brien and Palmer 1993). I haven't found that source online, but there's an apparent 2007 update mentioned here. That first source I linked also mentions a figure of "more than 15 percent ... committed athiests" here. Also, this website says 15% for DPRK (but notice the note there). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"As far as I can determine, the only source listed in the article for NK says nothing about the country being an atheist state." Please read the source again. It explicityly says that the North Korean government "mandated state sanctioned atheism". As far as the cult of personality around the Dear Leader and his father before, that is not at all inconsistant, but actually quite typical, with state atheism. It is what is sometimes called a political religion yet is still atheistic. Mamalujo (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I did that, and there it is in the second paragraph of page 44, right where the cite said it was. Don't know how I missed seeing it the first time around. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins and Harris not RS

Dawkins and Harris are not reliable sources for this article. One is a biologist, the other is a general interest writer with a bachelor's degree in philosophy. On top of that, both works are highly biased. If their ideas are worth including they would probably have been raised by a political scientist or historian. Mamalujo (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Dawkins and Harris are reliable sources for their own views, which are appropriate to include in response to some critics' linking of atheism with the actions of certain totalitarian regimes. Nick Graves (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, all kinds of people have views. That reasoning would allow any published loud-mouth to be a reliable source on anything under the guise of being a "reliable sources for their own views". The fact that these two gentlement have captured some popular attention does not mean they are reliable sources. Mamalujo (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"If their ideas are worth including they would probably have been raised by a political scientist or historian." I agree. We're violating WP:UNDUE when we start relying so much on primary sources that are non-experts in the subject matter. --Ronz (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

So what are David Kowalewski's credentials, OOI? As I have stated repeatedly on these pages, this article starts off by presenting a biased (compare with, say, state religion), and so I am unsure why this is being considered acceptable, yet any opposing views from notable sources is being removed? The views are attributed to these people, as opposed to given as statements of fact, so reliability doesn't come into it (unless you're suggesting that these people didn't make these views in the first place). The sources given are reliable sources that these are really their views. OTOH, the opposing point of view is given as a statement of fact - and so it's there that we should be questioning the reliability of the sources. Mdwh (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I should add that the article looks in much better shape than it was (e.g., the opening definition is no longer stated as fact, and has a source). I should clarify that I'm fine with referencing David Kowalewski, but I disagree with removing criticism from authors such as Dawkins and Harris. Mdwh (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

To add further comment: why do you require a "political scientist or historian"? Dawkins and Harris are not making claims about historical fact, they are questioning the claim of whether this was due to atheism, or is reasonable to attribute it to "state atheism". I don't see why Dawkins's and Harris's views and knowledge of atheism aren't notable (given that they are highly notable as writers on the subject), nor do I see why a political scientist or historian would be better qualified to talk about atheism.

And I think this is the problem with this article: this isn't an issue about historical fact (no one is disputing whether the atrocities took place), it's a question of what role "atheism" played in that, and whether such atrocities are inherently a definition of "state atheism". So this is not a matter of fact, it is pretty much a matter of opinions (and to some degree, semantics - as I say, we don't define "state religion" in a comparable way), and so I'm not sure we can do much else other than list notable arguments from various points of view. Talking about "reliability" or requiring an authoritative source or someone with qualifications makes no sense, as these are not points of facts that are being disputed. Mdwh (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Dawkins and Harris are probably the two most prominant and noteworthy people on this very subject. The fact that there are editors here who want them removed from the article tells volumes about the motives of the editors of the article and purpose for it. Tell Any Schlafly I said hello! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Should devout Catholics like Mamalujo (talk) admit a COI here since their religion has a history of totalistic regimes that murder and destroy humans and entire countries and civilizations that do not adhere to their religious view? I mean the only difference in the Catholic Church of the 13th century and Pol Pot is Pol Pot had more efficient weapons. The fact that Mamalujo (talk) is trying to keep Dawkins and Harris out of this article is most telling. They are two of the biggest critics of the modern authoritarian state known as the Vatican. Mamalujo (talk) is bound to his christian belief and according to scripture he risks eternal damnation if he does not go by the book. Is there a more clear COI than his? Dawkins and Harris are two of the most prominant critics of the Catholic government and religion, one that Mamalujo (talk) is sworn to defend and obey. Come on people, wake up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Harris and Dawkins are not reliable sources for this article, but atheist hating and Catholic writer Dinesh D'Souza is? And I like how the article "qualifies" Dawkins as an evolutionary biologist, as if that somehow made him less relevant, yet the article does not quality Dinesh D'Souza as a Catholic writer. Nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge/Move irrelevant countries and sections to Anti-clericalism

Unless we have a clear fact of "State atheism" for a country then any sections here for those countries without an documented State Atheism stance should be moved to the Anti-clericalism article.

Soviet - stay as they invented a term for it but shift the anti-clerical sections to the more relevant article,
Communist Albania - stay as it is the ONLY officially atheist state,
North Korea - move as we have no reference to it being atheist other than by implication,
Cuba - move as it is anticlerical,
China - move as it is anti-clerical and I don't think the Constitution mentions atheism,
Mongolian People's Republic - move as the detail is anti-clerical,
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge - move as it is anti-clerical/anti-religion,

That should clean up the article to the minimum to reflect the importance of the subject. Right now its a WP:COATRACK for a bunch of anti-clerical stuff utterly unrelated to "atheism".Ttiotsw (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I absoulutely oppose any merger or move to anti-clericalism. Anti-clericalism, while having some relation to state atheism is plainly distinct. The atheist states were all professedly atheistic and worked to eliminate all religion. That is not the case with anticlericalism. Anticlerical states virtually never professed atheism (Hebert and the Cult of Reason for a time in Revolutionary France being a brief arguable exception). Anticlerical states also did not oppose all religion, as did these states. Mexico, under Plutarco Calles, although he was an atheist was not an atheist state, but an anti-clerical state. It brutally suppressed Catholicism, but actually promoted Protestantism and was apathetic to other faiths. The same was true of anti-clericalism in France and Italy. Despite what you say, all Communist states became atheistic (meaning that they professed it and worked to eliminate religion) and there are reliable sources that say so. The fact that Albania sought an immediate elimination of religion and the others were content with a more gradual approach does not change the fact that they were atheist states. Mamalujo (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't what I say but what others say and more importantly it is what the state itself says it is. That's the problem. We do not have clean links to show why any of the countries I suggest above to be moved are in fact declared "State atheist" in something reliable e.g. a constitution. It seems to be implied because they are Communist and so they should be in an article called "State communism".

You are also conflating "atheistic" to mean "anti-religion or anti-theistic" when you say that "atheist states were all professedly atheistic and worked to eliminate all religion". Atheism simply means without a belief in god and an atheist is such a person. An atheist state thus means the state has no belief in god. That is the end of that definition. The identity of the state as "atheist" is a separate issue from its anti-clerical or anti-theistic views. It is WP:SYNTH for us to join a line between these. The state is not a person so this is not a personal belief about 'x'. If the commonality is primarily "communism" then the article is "State communism and anti-theism" rather than simple "State atheism". The beliefs of the state are coded into its foundation documents or laws e.g. constitutions or other rights documents. It should be pretty trivial for evidence to be provided for say, the "atheism" of the state of North Korea, though given that "State atheism" as a search string gets so few hits this does seem to be rather marginal.

Given you have highlighted that the primary reason to be for the state's atheism is specific forms of communism then I prompose the following,

Move article to State communism and anti-clericism
Redirect State atheism to the new article and a subsection of explicitly atheist states (of which there is just one I think.

Ttiotsw (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This proposition is absolutely ludicrous and is clearly a result of a personal view and bias.--Jesse (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that the state policy of being "atheist" i.e. making a positive claim that there is no god is inherited from the communism. How about this - help us improve the article rather than attacking other editors - so address my suggested changes rather than me ?. Have you actually read the article closely ? I'm trying to improve the article and I find that we get so few hits for the concept and when you look at it you find that it is a peculiar issue of "State communism" that is the driver for the anti-clericalism or anti-religion. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not attacking you as a person, but am calling out and brining to attention the obvious fact that you're letting your personal views drive your content. Your paragraphs are extraordinarily defensive about atheists and atheism, and you list the God Delusion as a book you just read on your personal page. Personal agenda? I think so. It's almost like you're launching an atheist "crusade" here and trying to erase history and remove the words atheism and atheist from the crimes of the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. Yes, the strict definition of atheist is one who does not believe in a god or gods. Well guess what? The strict definition of being a Christian is one who follows the teachings of Christ as God. That's it. The issue is things don't stop with definitions. Ever. Strict worldviews, one of which is clearly atheism, lead to problems. Mainstream Christianity has owned up, examined and apologized for the atrocities and violence it has been associated with, it's about time atheists man up and do the same, instead of all this dodging, rug sweeping and failed attempts to wash the blood of the 20th century off their hands, of which you are an apparent master. Some intellectual honesty and humility to one's worldview would be appreciated. You're not fooling anyone.--Jesse (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You must be new to this so please understand that this is NOT a Forum about the subject so please can you address the subject at hand. Did you ever get to read this article ? Have you attempted to address my concerns regarding the references used ?. Ttiotsw (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read the entire article and find your concerns invalid and fuelled by personal agenda. You're right this isn't a forum, but I figured I'd voice my concern instead of reporting you. I guess that was a mistake. You're clearly in the minority with your "atheism is innocent" propositions, changes and reverts: you're constantly deleting, reverting and disputing our decisions/contributions. I suggest you cede to the majority before you get reported. --Jesse (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to Ttiotsw's assertion, we do have sources that say that all of the states are officially atheistic. "By 1970 all 22 nations of central and eastern Europe which were behind the Iron Curtain were de jure Atheistic, promoting it, ideologically linked to it and opposed on principal to all religion. [12]" We also have sources that say Cuba and North Korea are atheist states, in fact, I added those sources. Ttiotsw also says that the editors here are engaging in SYN, which is not true. This article just says what the reliable sources say. Meanwhile Ttiotsw wants to puts his own gloss on these by introducing his own definition of atheism. He says the editors are conflating two ideas when in fact he wants a narrow defintion which is not in the sources in order to avoid a blotch on oh-so-clean name of atheism.Mamalujo (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The same states are officially communist too. The reason they are atheist is BECAUSE of how they implement the communism to make them anti-religious. We should thus title the article with what it really is i.e. State communism and....<insert the other thing>. It is claimed that these states are de jure Atheist but AFAIK only Albania made this claim in law. Perhaps people are conflating communism to mean atheist, or non-support of religion with atheist ? If these states are de jure Atheist then it will appear explicitly in some law of the state.

The primary driver or cause of the anti-religion stance is the communism which the states do explicitly claim to be. The atheism is a side-effect of following Marx and today even that isn't a given e.g. in Italy you have "Catholic Communists" who are clearly not atheist nor anti-Catholic (though they may be anti-other-religions).

The issue of de jure or de facto is important; AFAIK the Chinese 1949 constitution ensures "freedom of...religious belief..." and though over a decade later Mao went nuts in the Cultural Revolution that was clearly anti-religion (and probably unconstitutional as I don't know if the constitution was changed !), but later at least the 1982 constitution article 36 also has this freedom of religious belief and does NOT mention "God" but "religion". China (the STATE) is thus constitutionally indifferent to religion though specific rulers may interpret the constitution how they see fit. The clash with religion is clear if you look at the TSPM - this pre-dates the '66 to '76 Cultural Revolution and the TSPM was the State sanctioned body for religion. How is it reasonable to claim it is an "atheist" state when it has a constitution that supports freedom of religion and has state sponsored umbrella organisations to manage religions ?

There is a desire to keep "atheist" in the article title but this is unsupportable classification where a state actor does not declare this de jure. China is a good example whereby it is not de jure and it in fact has a state-sponsored administration of Religion which non-Chinese religions administrations do not like. The prime example is the decades long dispute between the Vatican and the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association over appointment of Bishops.

We're going to have to have much better links to support the assumptions a State actor is "atheist" and I suspect that in fact the state is at best anti-religious or anti-clerical. I think we should section off each state and show how each is supported. The above forms the basis of my detaching China from this coatrack of an article. The "atheist" means nothing, a car is atheist, all states are "atheist" by default, even the USA is "atheist" and even more so than China in that China has state-sponsored religion which the US constitution forbids.

Once again I argue that the article title is about "communism" and anti-religious sentiment not opinions that conflate communism and anticlerical by the same to be atheism. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Support The fact that other anti-clerical nations didn't claim to be "atheist" isn't a problem, there's no reason why the article can't cover both, and no argument has been presented by claiming to be "atheist" makes a difference (anymore than say, claiming to be communist). Furthermore, if there is a difference, then why aren't the anti-clerical nations that are religious covered under state religion? There's a clear POV problem - that state atheism is defined in terms of oppression of other religions, whilst with state religion, there is a separate article for this.

So either the difference between theist anti-clericalism and atheist anti-clericalism is important, and therefore anti-clericalism should be moved to state religion, or it isn't, in which case this article should be merged to anti-clericalism. Which is it? Mdwh (talk) 10:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Mamalujo (talk) opposes all of this because he has a clear COI. He is a devout Jesuit and has an interest in making athists look bad. He objects to Dawkins and HArris, two of the most noteworthy and prominant crticis of religion, and that includes the Catholic church. When I read everything Mamalujo (talk) writes I see a guy who has a clear agenda here. This article is not about State Atheism, even the definition is idiotic, it's about confusing athiesm with totalism. Something Mamalujo (talk) knows quite a bit about, for hundeds of years the Catholic Church operated much like Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. They destroyed families, countries, civilizations, murdered innocents, cut the heads of little children off to send their soul to god. I think we should be discussing Mamalujo (talk) COI and motives for that matter. Simply read every comment he's made on this talk page and note he is a devout Catholic. then his objections make perfect sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)