League of Militant Atheists - A Favorite Strawman of Many

[Taverner]

In many arguments here, theists cite the League of Militant Atheists as proof that it the Soviet Union was a revolution FOR Atheism.

Let's do a little reading now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists

The League of Militant Atheists (also Union of Belligerent Atheists (Russian: Союз воинствующих безбожников ; Society of the Godless (Общество безбожников ; Union of the Godless (Союз безбожников ), was an antireligious organization of workers and others that developed in Soviet Russia under the influence of the ideological and cultural views and policies of the Communist Party in 1925–1947. It "consisted of Party members, members of the Komsomol youth movement, workers and army veterans".

The League embraced workers, peasants, students, and intelligentsia. It had its first affiliates at factories, plants, collective farms (kolkhoz), and educational institutions. By the beginning of 1941, it had about 3.5 million members of 100 nationalities. It had about 96,000 offices across the country. Guided by Bolshevik principles of antireligious propaganda and party's orders with regards to religion, the League aimed at exterminating religion in all its manifestations and forming an anti-religious scientific mindset among the workers. It propagated atheism and scientific achievements, conducted 'individual work' (a method of sending atheist tutors to meet with individual believers to convince them of atheism, which could be followed up with public harassment if they failed to comply) with religious people, prepared propagandists and atheistic campaigners, published anti-religious scientific literature and periodicals, organized museums and exhibitions, conducted scientific research in the field of atheism and critics of religion. The League's slogan was "Struggle against religion is a struggle for socialism", which was meant to tie in their atheist views with economy, politics, and culture. One of the slogans adopted at the 2nd congress was "Struggle against religion is a struggle for the five year plan!" The League had international connections; it was part of the International of Proletarian Freethinkers and later of the Worldwide Freethinkers Union.

Whew!

OK - so the group was not some paramilitary organization as some here have claimed.

As per 'persecution of Christians,' their persecution amounts to:

- Going to churches and obnoxiously debating with believers

- Working (albeit unsucessfully) to purge the USSR of all belief in God

- Trying to convert Theists to Atheists in the military, at the workplace, in schools, etc.


Now under Stalin there was real persecution of the religious, but under Stalin EVERYONE was persecuted, from high ranking party members, to ditch diggers, to people wearing glasses. If you did not like somebody on your block, you placed an anonymous tip to the NKVD and nobody every saw them again.

The one time they did try to remove religion from the USSR, Operation North - where they forcibly moved Jehovas Witnesses and practitioners of non-Orthodox religions to Siberia. Were they sent to labor camps? Were they stripped of their possessions? No and no.

The idea was to just get them out of their hair. Similar to the British Exile of the Anabaptists to the 13 colonies, except it was, well, fucking Siberia.
'
So all the lies Christians state about being killed for believing in God - all of it made up.

In Stalinist times you were killed for not being Stalin or Beria.

Let me follow up with what eventually became of the League of Militant Atheists:

The climate of the campaign against religion was changing in the late 1930s and early 1940s. The regime slowly became more moderate in its approach to religion. Yaroslavsky, in 1941 warned against condemning all religious believers, but said that there were many loyal Soviet citizens still possessing religious beliefs. He called for patient and tactful individual work without offending the believers, but "re-educating" them. He claimed that religion had disappeared in some parts of the country but in other parts (especially in the newly annexed territories) it was strong, and he warned against starting brutal offensives in those areas.

He alleged that there were very few attempts to re-open churches and that this was a sign of the decline in religion. He branded those who tried to re-open churches as "former kulaks" and "falsifiers of figures". This report was contradicted, however, by the LMG's own figures (based on the 1937 census) that found perhaps half the country still held religious beliefs, even if they had no structures to worship in any longer and they could no longer openly express their beliefs.[30]

An answer to this report was found when Nazi Germany invaded in 1941, and churches were re-opened under the German occupation, while believers flocked to them in the millions. In order to gain support for the war effort (both domestic and foreign; the allies would not support Stalin if he continued the campaign ) against the German forces that were effectively "liberating" religious believers from the persecution against them, Stalin ended the antireligious persecution and the LMG was disbanded. All LMG periodicals ceased to publish by September 1941. Its official disbandment date is unknown, but traced somewhere between 1941–1947.

Yaroslavsky turned his attention to other pursuits and in 1942, he published an article on Orthodox writer Dostoevsky, for his alleged hatred of the Germans.

So much for persecution of Christians, huh?

If only Atheists had it this good in the dark ages....you know, when the CHURCH ran things...

[Goblinmonger]

1. This is just awesome

Last edited Tue May 1, 2012, 02:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Let me have a snack while I wait for the usual suspect to blather on.


Edited to add: I was wrong on how many posts it would take. Good thing I didn't put money on it.

[rug]

2. Are you serious?

"In addition to what is stated above, the 1929 congress also issued a number of other orders that would form the basis of the LMG's activities (as well as the character of the antireligious persecution throughout the country) in the following decade.

"At its 1929 congress it admitted that there had been some growth in sectarian groups, but claimed that this was local rather than national phenomena. They said, however, that lay religious activists exceeded one million and that all of the religious communities including the old Orthodox had begun to adopt modern methods and were attracting youth. It determined therefore that the fight against religion needed to be pressed, although it still, as Yaroslavsky had said for years, warned against extreme antireligious ultra-left attacks.[20] At the same meeting it demanded that no holidays should be allowed to coincide with important Church feast days; this policy was carried out in the same year.

"The resolutions at the meeting called for local LMG branches to effect total public ostracism of the clergy. They ordered that priests should not be invited to private homes, donations to churches should discontinue, and that trade unions should be pressured not to perform any work for churches. The party would adopt this resolution a year later.

"The congress also criticized the armed forces for failing to conduct adequate antireligious education among its soldiers. The organization had set up cells in the armed forces in each unit beginning in 1927. In a study done on a unit in 1925, it was found that 60% of recruits were religious believers at the time of recruitment, while only 28% remained believers at the end of their service.[21] This data may have ignored the phenomena of soldiers who hid their religious convictions during their service and thus have some innacuracy. These experiences nevertheless played a role in the LMG's approach to combatting religion in the military in the following decade."

This was not a debating society. Antireligious propaganda combined with state power has all the charm of the Inquisition.

[Taverner]

3. That's what we Atheists go through EVERY FUCKING DAY

Try getting a job in the South if you don't go to church

----------------------------


By the way, this was HARDLY an inquisition. No one was killed, no one was hurt. And to top it off, they PRESSURED trade unions not to work for churches. They PRESSURED the Army to deconvert believers.

Sounds like a lobbying group, like these guys:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/07/gods-lobbyists.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Forum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_Foundation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_in_Media

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Organization_for_Marriage

[rug]

4. I don't think Uncle Joe is after you.

Different times and different places make different problems.

[Taverner]

5. Uncle Joe is dead

And during Stalinist times, you and I would probably have the same life expectancy.

[rug]

6. Good thing we live here and now.

[Taverner]

10. Good thing we live. Period.

[AlbertCat]

66. Antireligious propaganda combined with state power has all the charm of the Inquisition.

Exactly!

Replacing an infallible god with an infallible party....


is NOT atheism. It's like some religious horror!

[humblebum]

7. If you are going to tell the story then tell the whole story.

No one has said that the purpose of the Revolution was "FOR Atheism." But to deny that it was a primary goal is purely dishonest or ignorant. And no one has said The League was a paramilitary group. It's members were representative of a very broad cross section of society.

"After 1929 and through the 30s, the closing of churches, mass arrests of the clergy and religiouslyactive laity, and persecution of people for attending church reached unprecedented proportions.
The LMG employed terror tactics against believers in order to further the campaign, while employing the guise of protecting the state or prosecuting law-breakers. The clergy were attacked as foreign spies and trials of bishops were conducted with their clergy as well as lay adherents who were reported as 'subversive terroristic gangs' that had been unmasked
Official propaganda at the time called for the banishment of the very concept of God from the Soviet Union These persecutions were meant to assist the ultimate socialist goal of eliminating religion.

From 1932-1937 Stalin declared the 'five year plans of atheism' and the LMG was charged with completely eliminating all religious expression in the country."

So don't try to minimize their impact. They were very much involved in ferreting out believers and turning them into authorities. And they did not cease to exist after the War. They morphed and remained active.


Dimitry V. Pospielovsky. A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory, and Practice, and the Believer.

[Taverner]

8. Terror tactics?

If that's how you define it, then Christianity has a big leg up on terror tactics.

They've been using terror tactics since Constantine made Rome Christian

[humblebum]

12. Those were not my words. You are dealing in partial truths to obscure facts.nt

[Taverner]

9. Nope. Pospielovsky could NEVER be biased....

It's not like his love for the Russian Orthodox church would change his opinion, or have him inflate facts, or speak in Hyperbole...

Wait - but it does and is!

[humblebum]

11. You're sourcing wiki and accusing him of bias? LOL

The man is a noted historian and a Russian. And he is certainly not the only source. Eyewitness accounts, Russian archives, films, several other authors.

[Taverner]

13. He is a noted historian of the Russian Orthodox Church

I would trust him for that...

But his approach is biased...

[humblebum]

16. Doubt very seriously if his approach is biased if he utilizes as many sources

as he does, and his work is echoed by many other historians, as his is. Just far too much evidence.

[Taverner]

17. I could show how the Israelites were really Brits using "many sources"

Hard truth: The Orthodox Church has always been a tool of the moneyed elite in Russia. That's why Vladimir Putin loves them so much.

[humblebum]

18. Which proves absolutely nothing. As a matter of fact,

you have nothing to validate your story except a neglecting of facts and saying it never happened. If atheism was never an important issue as you claim, then why did the Soviets build museums dedicated to "Scientific Atheism?"

http://www.flickr.com/photos/norfolkodyssey/376765112/

[Taverner]

19. Because atheism is the logical scientific conclusion

There is no way you can scientifically prove any god exists

[humblebum]

20. If your mind and method of inquiry are limited to empiricism, then yours

is the only conclusion that can be drawn. However, in reality, not everyone thinks that way, therefore other conclusions are drawn.

[darkstar3]

21. Ah, those other ways of knowing again.

Do those include rectal extraction?

[humblebum]

23. You just can't handle those whose thinking is broader than yours, can you? nt

[darkstar3]

24. One may be open-minded without being required to accept that

which is entirely pulled out of someone else's ass.

There's open-minded, and then there's just plain gullible.

[humblebum]

26. That's what I thought. nt

[eqfan592]

28. Oh, I'm sure it is, humblebum.

Because it never, EVER will get old....

[Iggo]

35. Right Click. Save Image.

Gracias.

[AlbertCat]

67. those whose thinking is broader

How is clinging to notions made up in prehistory by folks more ignorant of their world than anyone today can even imagine be considered thinking broadly?

[Taverner]

36. Other ways of knowing are useless, and have no verification process

"I FEEL THERE WILL BE AN EARTHQUAKE SOMEDAY!!!!"

See, I'm a prophet too.

[dimbear]

33. This is the whole lesson of all that history. The church was in bed with the Czar for centuries.

For a few years they paid a price for their complicity, then the status quo was re-established.

Lesson learned by the church? Doubtful. They could have learned the same lesson cheaper looking at the French Revolution. Same same.

Mixing church and state harms both. It's not hard to grasp.

I wonder if Stalin studied the French Revolution in his seminary classes.

[Act_of_Reparation]

27. I would say the same to you.

Was the Soviet Union an atheist state? Certainly.

Did the Soviet Union oppress believers? Certainly.

However, these are not necessarily dependent criteria. Stalin oppressed religious authorities because he saw loyalty to anyone but him, or to anything but the party, to be treasonous. In this context, atheists were oppressing the religious not necessarily on the principal of religion, but for a more provincial reason: political capital.

Historically, the church sided with ruling classes and pacified the exploited classes with promises of post-mortem happiness despite their oppressive lives. Marx - and ostensibly Stalin - knew people would gladly lay down their lives for the belief in a hereafter, and both recognized the danger this posed to their political power. Ergo, they did not object to religion on the principal of truth, as most atheists object to religion, but because they wanted to replace the church with themselves.

But a duck is a duck, and the comparison made by believers between modern atheists and Stalin is a classic example of a composition fallacy.

Most communists are atheists. Most atheists are not communists.

So why the hell are we even talking about this?

[humblebum]

29. Nice spin, but it involved much more than just Stalin (or Marx). And

"most communists are atheists. Most atheists are not communists." No one said that most atheists are communists. However, ALL card-carrying Marxist-Leninist Communists officially were atheists, not most.

Your reference to a "composition fallacy" is a straw man.

[Joseph8th]

31. No, he's spot on. It's a composition fallacy...

... when applied to today's atheist movement in the U.S. If the subject is strictly Russian history, hey, I'm game, and the composition might have statistical merit (i.e., be stereotypically true) in Russia even now, but the complaint is over the defensive Stalin smear on atheism that's all the vogue with some U.S. Christians.

So it's only a straw man if it the Stalin smear didn't come up all the time. What does that have to do with atheists, today? So Stalin was an atheist and did some bad anti-religious crap. How is that relevant to protecting the 1st Amendment separation of church and state -- the only interest of 'New' atheism?

I admit it always blows my mind when Stalin gets inserted into a debate, out of the blue. It just opens up the discourse to anecdotal evidence, which is terrain that every Christian apologist should tremble to tread. (Of course, there's always Plan B: The Real Christian argument.)

[humblebum]

32. Actually there are some strong philosophical links between organized atheism

in the Soviet Union and organized atheism in other parts of the world today, including the US. the "New" atheism is largely recycled old atheism. Scratch the composition fallacy.

[edhopper]

37. So we

must never equate the good Christians here with the bad Christians like Fred Phelps or Pat Robertson.
But putting Stalin around the necks of all atheist is just fine and dandy.

Hmmm?

[humblebum]

40. Who has put Stalin around the necks of all atheists?

My ONLY point was to show that most wars or mass killings were in fact not carried out in the name of religion, or committed for or by religious people, as is so often stated or implied here and other places. Case made. Nowhere have I said that all atheists were like Stalin or any of a significant number of atheistic dictators.

[darkstar3]

45. Well then, even if we accept your wacky-ass premise, you have ONE mass killing, and no war.

Your shit is laughable even when people spot you.

[humblebum]

46. No different than your "wacky-ass" denial. I suppose if you consider the Revolutions and civil wars

in Russia and China not to be wars, then you might be correct. For someone that harps on logical fallacies you certainly make you share of big ones.

[darkstar3]

49. Sure...

I don't think you know what "logical fallacy" means. Of course, you could always prove me wrong by actually stating what fallacy you think I invoked.

[AlbertCat]

68. most wars or mass killings were in fact not carried out in the name of religion,

Do you just mean in the 20th century?

'Cause otherwise, you may have to explain yourself.

[Joseph8th]

39. You can't just state lies as facts...

... and expect others to accept them. Since I am one of many proponents and participants of New Atheism, I can help you understand what these movements are that you so little understand. Or do you refuse to listen to the people you intend to slander? We are not fit to define our own terms -- now we must submit our definitions to you for inspection?

Pardon me for saying so, but what fucking hubris.

To be honest, as interested as I am in Russian history, I confess I have never studied Soviet organized atheism at all. I can TELL YOU how it is -- Soviet atheism has had NO Influence on me.

None.

Zero.

Therefore, by counterexample, your proof is fallacious and your fallacy is compositional.

QED.

[humblebum]

41. You said that "Soviet atheism has had NO Influence on me." Really?

Did Bertrand Russell have any influence on your atheistic development, or the psychology, the philosophy of unity, and ideals that came out of the Paris Commune or the Vienna Circle. Did you ever find yourself agreeing with many of Hitchens' POVs, or Dawkins ideals? If you did then chances are you shared some of the same philosophical viewpoints as Soviet Atheists.

[darkstar3]

43. Watch that drift...

by the time you reach the end of your short post, you've gone from "influence" to "coincidence".

[humblebum]

48. Where did I mention "coincidence?" nt

[darkstar3]

50. That you can't see it makes it even funnier.

[humblebum]

52. Why then did you use quotation marks?

Mendacious little character, aren't you. The influences are far too obvious.

[darkstar3]

54. When you use words you've seen others use, you should look them up first.

If you don't understand my usage of quotation marks, feel free to read the post without them. It doesn't change facts. Post 41 starts by explaining the concept of influence, and then quickly shifts to the concept of coincidence. Note the absence of quotation marks. Now see if you can figure out where that happens.

[humblebum]

58. Far too obvious to be coincidence. Too many direct connections. nt

[darkstar3]

60. Which you cannot document, and you cannot refute #39. Tough shit.

[humblebum]

63. "Which you cannot document?" If you say so, but definitely rises to much more than mere coincidence.

Your ignorance of history is appalling.

[AlbertCat]

69. Too many direct connections.

Yeah... like 7 degrees to Kevin Bacon

[humblebum]

62. How are "quotation marks" words? nt

[Joseph8th]

64. No! None of the above... so I guess that means...

... you're completely wrong and you'll now admit it, right?

I've never read Hitchens or Dawkins. Never heard of them until pansy ass believers started acting like they were being fed to the lions. Bertrand Russell had ZERO influence on my atheistic development... in fact I've never read any of his atheistic writings (just some of his philosophy and a buttload of his math). So now sharing philosophical viewpoints with Soviet Atheists obliquely via several layers of separation means Soviet Atheism is an influence on me, whether I like it or not? To hell with the facts that I state?

Please. Stop. Insulting.

Atheism isn't a dogma, and has no philosophical underpinnings that need to be rehashed. It's most easily acquired from first principles. In other words, just reading the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. with an open mind is all I needed to decide that religious belief is irrational. All I had to do was read history books to realize that religious dogma was a force of regression and repression, and little else.

First principles my friend. None of your boogiemen or strawmen needed, so stop telling other people who they are and what they think and open your ears. You are either being disingenuous or are a slanderous liar.

[humblebum]

65. Then I will repeat what I said.

"Actually there are some strong philosophical links between organized atheism in the Soviet Union and organized atheism in other parts of the world today." The similarities are undeniable. And if you have done any of the few things that I listed in post #41, then you have indeed been influenced by some of the same philosophies common to organized atheism in the Soviet Union.

[AlbertCat]

70. The similarities are undeniable.

Like the similarities between Hinduism and Christianity. So they must be the same.

[humblebum]

71. Which makes absolutely no sense. nt

[AlbertCat]

72. Which makes absolutely no sense.

Oh good! You got the point!



wait... maybe not.

[humblebum]

73. So you really think that there are no similarities

between organized atheism and organized atheism? Gotcha.

[eqfan592]

74. About as many similarities as there are between The World Church of the Creator and the NAACP.

Both are based in the United States.....and that's about it.

[AlbertCat]

75. So you really think that there are no similarities

I see that you did not get my point.

(Actually, I doubt you are that dense.... but go ahead, be disingenuous.)

[humblebum]

76. Yes. You say that one group of atheists has absolutely nothing in common

with another group of atheists. I think I got your point. But I strongly disagree with it. The two groups have much in common.

[AlbertCat]

77. Maybe you ARE that dense!

Both Hinduism and Christianity have many similarities .... but not enough to call them remotely the same.

There... is that fucking clear enough for you? Jeeze!

[humblebum]

78. Yes of course. Sorta like how an apple and a cucumber are similar but not even remotely the same,

Last edited Wed May 9, 2012, 10:03 PM - Edit history (1)

but organized atheism compared to organized atheism is as an apple to an apple. One mught be green and the other red, but still very much alike. The only thing different between organized atheism in the USSR and elsewhere is the set of circumstances surrounding the two.

[eqfan592]

38. You yourself said that you thought atheists were a subset of Marxist-Leninist communists.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=25380

[humblebum]

42. No I did not. I specified "Marxist-Leninist communists in the USSR." Not all

Marxist-Leninist Communists were in the USSR and not all in other countries were atheists and not all communists are atheists.

[darkstar3]

44. Those last five words? You might want to explain them to your one-man cheer squad.

In fact, you might want to explain them to yourself, from just a little while ago when you said "Communism was not required. Becoming an atheist was."

[humblebum]

47. "Communism was not required. Becoming an atheist was." Yep. and I'll stand by that. nt

[darkstar3]

51. So you contradict yourself and care not?

[humblebum]

53. And where is there contradiction? Facts are facts. nt

[darkstar3]

55. Seriously? You want me to fucking spoonfeed it to you?

It's right there in front of you, in clear print for all to see, but since you seem to have serious trouble with...everything...lately:

"not all communists are atheists"
"Becoming an atheist was {required}"

[humblebum]

57. "Not all communists are atheists" Yep. "Becoming an atheist was {required}" Yep.

You have displayed your myopic view of Russian history many times before. Why should I expect anything different now?

Fact is, not all communists are atheists. There are Christian Communists.

And becoming an atheist was required for ALL card-carrying Marxist-Leninist Communists in the CPSU, no exceptions and upon severe reprisal against that member and his or her immediate family if any religious tendencies were displayed.

[darkstar3]

59. You contradict yourself and care not. Gotcha.

[humblebum]

61. You have failed to show any evidence of contradiction. nt

[edhopper]

14. Is this Alan Moore's next graphic novel

where Thomas Payne, Darwin, Ingersoll and Bertrand Russel team up to defeat Moriarty, who through ta strange turn of events has become the evil Arch Bishop of Canteberry.

[Goblinmonger]

15. If he writes it, I'll read it.

That evil genius.

[darkstar3]

22. Facts don't stop people from enjoying the usage of fallacy.

Some people even defend their use of fallacy by stating that "sometimes" it's perfectly legitimate. I've seen entire websites devoted to showing people how to use fallacy and get away with it.

It's unfortunate that those people don't realize that it only works when the audience is uneducated in what fallacy is, and when there is a timer and a moderator.

[Taverner]

25. Amen!

[Taverner]

30. To revive this mighty argument!

So mote it continue...