Talk:State atheism

Talk section closed? Where to add feedback?

Many users have received a request to comment on this article.

 Please comment on Talk:State atheism .. The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:State atheism. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I would do so, but that topic seems to be closed in the Talk section.

 The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Any suggestions? Peter K Burian (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello User:Peter K Burian, it looks like I'm a little late too. The RfC closed today, with the administrator implementing this ruling. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 15:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm unsure why User:Legobot was sending out feedback requests this deep into the RfC, but closure was formally requested at WP:ANRFC as early as 7 September. I performed the closure earlier today; I am not an admin and closures are not "rulings".

To the topic of whether the article should deal with "state atheism" as a term, rather than an aspect of a political regime, that discussion has indeed ended, but if you have other feedback about the article you are welcome to start a new section about it on this talk page. Of course, any editor is free to edit the article to address any concerns they might have. Snuge purveyor (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I am actually in agreement with your closure User:Snuge purveyor and agree that the term state atheism is very far from being a neologism. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It was open almost a month and went about 10 days without comment before the closure. Plus the RFC had formation problems, in essence a blend of multiple questions. I support the closure, with the note that it should be carefully read and not interpreted more broadly than it is actually written. So, other than "not a neologism", and politely saying that any future RFC's be better formed, it leaves most of the other questions that are blended into the RFC open to further development and discussion, e.g in new sections. North8000 (talk) 01:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal re: State_atheism#France

I propose that this entire section be removed. It's about the Cult of reason, which in the linked article is described as a state religion, not state atheism. This appears to be a case of WP:COAT and / or off-topic. Any feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: The reason the Cult of Reason article does not mention state atheism is because Xenophrenic, who, based on numerous ANIs/ANEs/etc., is a pov-pusher and edit warrior on atheism-related articles, removed that word from the article even though the reference clearly mentions it [1]. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Strong oppose. The state atheism article should mention the Cult of Reason. There are reliable sources and good evidence to support this matter: God Divided: Understanding the Differences Between Islam, Christianity By Christopher Catherwood,See page 145 of this academic paper and 10 failed atttempts to create state atheismKnox490 (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Support. As if 'voting' counts for anything: if reliable sources don't designate a claim as 'state atheism' (and none of this section's sources do this), it should be removed. The same goes for the Mexico section... and any claim at all in this article, actually. The 'references' provided (in the comment above) use the apologetic-neologism version of 'state atheism' (as part of the purely apologetic 'atheist atrocities' fallacy) and are theologian in nature (and laughable - one is a thesis for a doctorate in Christian Theology (taken from the first source) and the latter article is titled '10 Failed Attempts To Create State Cults Or Religions')... but I guess relating reality isn't important to the authors of this largely WP:OR article. TP ✎ ✓ 13:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Obvious Oppose: - It's a weird thing to suggest removing a section just after an editor who is on the edge of getting banned removes the word "atheistic" from the Cult of Reason article. I think that the France section could actually be expanded, perhaps with the help of an experienced historian like User:Rjensen. desmay (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

This needs to be underlined: 'voting' or not, if the claim-supporting sources don't mention 'state atheism', both should be removed, as that would be pure WP:OR amd WP:SYNTH and strictly verboten by Wikipedia standards. This rule applied would, effectively, remove the entire section (and that of Mexico, too, amongst others - in fact, this would greatly reduce the entire article). TP ✎ ✓ 22:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Disagree, twice over. The article is about a subject, and one which could go by various names. First, OR and synth refer to statements in content, not to the mere presence of material in an article. Second, given that the subject can have many names, there's not a requirement that the source mention the particular title of the Wikipedia article.

That's but an attempt at distraction to ambiguity. One can concoct any story or concept from any given number of demonstrable facts, and provide references to those individual facts, but that doesn't mean that those facts, even though they check out individually, support (or even mention) the story - that is what's happening here. And if a source doesn't mention a concept (especially one as particular as this one), but is used to support/describe/'confirm' that concept, that is the very definition of WP:SYNTH. TP ✎ ✓ 20:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

First, please note that I did note weigh in on the inclusion/exclusion question because I feel I've not learned enough about the Cult of Reason to do so. I was weighing in on your ratoinale for exclusion. Next, please don't invent deragatory non-existent motives for my post as you did with your "That's but an attempt at distraction to ambiguity". Finally, your post did not even address the 2 points that I made much less refute them. North8000 (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I addressed your two points specifically... if this article (understatedly) claims that its title 'thing' is many different things (by including different sources talking about different 'things'), that is the very definition of WP:SYNTH. A wikipedia contributor may think that a claim/event may qualify for, say, 'communism', but they can't call it that unless the source they cite does... and if it doesn't, yet they make the claim all the same, again, that is the very definition of WP:SYNTH and possibly WP:OR.

Most of this article's claims cite sources that have 'state atheism' nowhere in them... look for yourself and go figure. TP ✎ ✓ 17:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Better example: let's say I'm someone who subscribes to a concept or theory that few or none subscribe to, and starts a 'X is really Y' article. The events and characters I choose to include in the article may be real, citable X, and my including them in my 'is really Y' article is an understated 'evidence' for that claim, but nowhere in any source I cite is there any allusion to/evidence of 'X is really Y'.

That's exactly what this article does. TP ✎ ✓ 18:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not to the knowledge point of weighing in on this particular article. But one example of my two points would a hypothetical "Fast Car" article. And an insertion is made that the (reputable) XYZ magazine said that as of 2017 the Bugatti Model 1257 has the highest top speed of any production car in the world. The magazine did not specifically say that the Bugatti Model 1257 is a "fast car", the specific title of the article. I would say that this inclusion is not a violation of synth or wp:or, my two (plus an added third) points on this are:

• Wp:or and wp:synth regulate statements made in articles, not the mere inclusion of material in articles.
• "Fast cars" is one of many possible terms for the subject area of the article. Sourcing does not need to use the specific article title for content to be directly germane to the article.
• Wp:or and wp:synth regulate statements made in articles, not to the process of determination of whether or not a source supports a statement or statement-by-presence in the article.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

One doesn't require knowledge to observe that the sources do not match the article title's claim (that the facts it contains are 'concept Y').

'Fast cars' is a bad analogy because it is a vague descriptive (and either word can be any number of things). 'State atheism' is a precise claim-concept only used by a select few outside of its use as a translation for the soviet-era anti-religion brigade, and its more recent derivative is utterly absent from historical consensus (and works derived thereof).

A better example would be someone claiming that a bat is a bird: they start a 'bat (bird)' article, and in it factually describe everything about bats, and those facts check out with their sources, but utterly absent in any sourcea is the article title's claim that 'bats are birds'.

And this article does also exactly that. TP ✎ ✓ 23:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

You could be right on where the issue on this particular article should end up on this topic...I don't know. And please note that my posts were limited to the very narrow topic of applicability or wp:or / synthesis to the question. But you analogy is not analogous...the statement-by-presence of bats in a bird article is clearly false.North8000 (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

the statement-by-presence of bats in a bird article is clearly false.

...and we may agree that it is false (which is a moot point where demonstrable fact is concerned), but the fact that it is false is also demonstrated (a wikipedia requirement) by the lack of 'bats are birds' or references to bats as 'birds' in the citations provided (or any reference). And if none of the references used here refer to the events presented as 'state atheism' (or even use the term in the entire publication), who is claiming that it is 'state atheism'? The wikipedian contributing those facts under that label, that's who (and perhaps the other contributors who, against all demonstrable evidence, 'agree' with them): again, that is the very definition of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. TP ✎ ✓ 13:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

On the narrower topic that I was discussing, I guess we'll just need to agree to disagree. North8000 (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Rules (and principles) aren't selectively applied, here: the problems in the narrower topic (if it the France section you are referring to) is the 'norm' for the rest of the article as well, and those faults are demonstrable... 'agreements' (or 'votes') will not resolve them.

But if testable demonstrations and reason are ineffective in discussions about resolving them, and it comes down to (once again) to a "the 'side' agrees with (or 'votes for') more 'wins'" situation, I don't at all mind opening another RfC on this. TP ✎ ✓ 06:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Clear oppose The map shows France and the section on France is also very detailed and informative. I find a few sources other than what have been listed here.[2][3][4][5] Lorstaking (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Many of the sources cited above make no comment (some make opposite comment) about whether the France did ever or does promote State Atheism, some sources and comments appear to want to make no distinction between S-A, secularism and anti-clericalism. Perhaps a less WP-voiced section could be created making the point that some sources have described this period thus, but reliance on OR, SYNTH and relatively marginal sources in the discussion above advertises how marginal this PoV really is. To give one example "French Revolution made atheism officially respectable in France". It makes no more sense to link that to S-A, than it would to argue that a particular campaign or campaigner which made homosexuality more acceptable, was somehow proof of State gayness.Pincrete (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Source evaluation

Source breakdown from the current revision:

1: State promotion of atheism as a public norm first came to prominence in Revolutionary France (1789–1799).

1. The source does not support the text. Not even close.

2: Historian Gavin Hyman argues the "French Revolution made atheism officially respectable in France," He adds that the hostile reaction to the Revolution in Britain had the opposite effect.

1. The full quote is, "But if the French Revolution made atheism officially respectable in France, it appeared to have precisely the opposite effect in Britain." But being the operative word.
2. Gavin Hyman is not a historian.

3: A campaign of dechristianization happened which included removal and destruction of religious objects from places of worship and the transformation of churches into "Temples of the Goddess of Reason", culminating in a celebration of Reason in Notre Dame Cathedral.

1. Supported by the source, but it's trivia in pursuit of WP:SYNTH.

4: One of the leaders of the Terror was Maximilien Robespierre; he did believe in a Supreme Being and he strongly opposed atheism. He accused the dechristianizers "under pretense of destroying superstition ... [of making] a kind of religion of atheism itself."

1. Supported by the source, but still not on topic. I.e., WP:SYNTH.

5: According to French historian Michel Vovelle, the Cult of Reason first appeared during the trial of Marie Antoinette, but took off after the execution of Antoinette.

1. A book by two fringe authors does not a reliable source make. I.e., Pyramids and Freemasons are off topic.

6: The Cult of Reason was founded by Jacques Hébert and his followers. The Cult of Reason was the first official state sponsored, civic, and atheistic religion of the French Republic from October 1793 until March 1794. The Cult of Reason became popular among intellectuals and sans culottes alike. From mid-1793 the Jacobin-dominated French Convention gave tacit approval to the Cult of Reason. On 6 October 1793, the National Convention replaced the Gregorian calendar for the French Republican Calendar for France. Together with Pierre Gaspard Chaumette, Joseph Fouché, in the Nièvre department, Fouché ransacked churches, sent their valuables to the treasury, and ordered the words "Death is an eternal sleep" to be inscribed over the gates to cemeteries.

1. The second sentence is not supported by the source.
2. Michael Davies (Catholic writer) is not a reliable source on the topic. I.e., The balance, factual or not, is irrelevant.

7: On 10 November 1793, the Festival of Reason was held in the Notre-Dame de Paris, a newly converted Temple of Reason.

1. Supported, but off topic. Trivia in pursuit of WP:SYNTH, again.

8: Historian Gavin Flood says, "During the French Revolution in 1793 the Gothic Cathedral of Notre Dame de Paris was rededicated to the Cult of Reason, an atheistic doctrine intended to replace Christianity."

1. The quote is accurate, but is the first sentence of a chapter entitled, "Religion and rationality." I.e., The source does not cover "State atheism."
2. The source contains exactly two mentions of the "French Revolution", both are on the page cited. I.e., The source does not cover the "French Revolution."
3. Gavin Flood is, also, not a historian.

9: The Cult of Reason vanished quickly, after its chief exponents, Jacques Hébert and his followers were guillotined on 24 March 1794.

1. Supported, but off topic. a.k.a., Trivia in pursuit of WP:SYNTH.

Sources

Sure looks like a lot of WP:SYNTH to me. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That is demonstrably a lot of WP:SYNTH. Do preserve this (and thanks for all that work!) for a future RfC (or better), as I'm pretty well sure that any attempt to remove the offending section will (in spite of all evidence) be reverted, and reason and rules haven't seemed to have much effect here in the past. TP ✎ ✓ 15:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

In view of all that has transpired, and also IMO some questionable arguments (is it synth?) on what are actually sidebar points, if you feel that the article should be changed, my suggestion would be to propose the specific change in an RFC, and leave all of the arguments regarding the proposed change for the response section. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Calling something 'questionable' with no demonstrable counter-evidence/reference is not helpful, and isn't even considerable, really. Since the WP:SYNTH is demonstrable (and has been demonstrated above), the article should simply be changed. TP ✎ ✓ 00:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree that anything discussed has established that it is wp:synth, but the synth debate is a sidebar point either way. And regarding what's next, I was merely deriving that from the close of the RFC. I think that all of Artifax's points were good except for again that structural sidebar. Perhaps the material should be removed. North8000 (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, 'agree' (or 'disagree', or 'voting') aren't even applicable where Wikipedia policy offenses are concerned. ArtifexMayhem points not only part of the discussion, but the evidence (that you seem to acknowledge) supporting it. Normally the content should just be removed, and an RfC would come into play should this removal be reversed or some sort of evidenceless or evidence-defying 'protectionism'happens, as it is a place to present a factual case (and call others to examine the evidence)... as is this conversation already, but those watching this page (its authors) don't seem to want to participate, which says much about what is going on here (and a lack of counter-evidence) and what is to come... and that, most likely, will be an RfC or other arbitrary measure. I'm glad, though, that you see some sense in all this. TP ✎ ✓ 10:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Cool. North8000 (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

ThePromenader is correct. Unless better sourcing is found, the material will be removed. Holding a RFC over such basic policy issues doesn't make much sense. FYI: I've started a source evaluation on the Revolutionary Mexico section, but probably won't finish it until late next week. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to just do a recap and then sign off. IMHO no synth policy issue has been established. Synth is creating a statement, not including material that is or may not be germane. But it appears to me (just from reading here, I don't have expertise in the area of the disputed content)that the material may not be germane and may make a wrong or unsourced statement by inclusion (that such is State aethism) and it may be best to remove it. North8000 (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, WP:SYNTH is but a subset of WP:OR, but WP:SYNTH 'digs deeper' into a contributor's motive for (usually WP:SOAPBOXing a 'desired conclusion'), and methods of, contributing unsupported/poorly-supported/selective claims.

If an author writes an article titled "X", and includes events ("Y") that 'explain' that title, they are declaring that "Y is X"... and when the sources recounting the events (under another title) make no mention of "X" at all (this is already WP:OR territory), that "Y is X" declaration is the author's own (unsupported) opinion (and this is WP:ESSAY), and the meeting of the two is WP:SYNTH. And when one adds the motive of using Wikipedia's popularity to broadcast the (misleading, etc.) result (as 'truth') to the world, it becomes WP:SOAPBOX. So, while this article qualifies for several (if not all) of these 'sub-offenses', WP:OR is the demonstrable root of them all. TP ✎ ✓ 10:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

No User:ArtifexMayhem, the material will not be removed and if you try to do that against consensus, I'm going to revert you. User:Ramos1990, User:Ozhistory, and User:Lorstaking have provided tons of publications that discuss Revolutionary France as being an atheist state. Can the material be rewritten? Yes. Should it be removed because you don't like it? No. Thanks for preventing this article from being overtaken by a fringe view User:North8000 - does the sysop who closed the RfC, User:Snuge purveyor, need to intervene here too? desmay (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

See, this is what I mentioned earlier - for some, Wikipedia is for 'getting the message out there', and the veracity of that (and the rules requiring that veracity be demonstrated) simply don't... matter.

"...have provided tons of publications that discuss Revolutionary France as being an atheist state"

As demonstrated above, the term isn't included in any supporting source. And if the publication doesn't describe the events it contains as 'state atheism' (or even 'atheist state'), who is? The Wikipedia contributors, that's who, and that is stricly forbidden by several Wikipedia rules: (often networked) 'voting' or 'more reverters' are irrelevent in that (and is arguably an offense in itself). TP ✎ ✓ 18:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User:ScrapIronIV and User:Rjensen have also worked on this topic before. I think their input would be valuable - the section on Revolutionary France should not be deleted just because you don't like it. desmay (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Any chance of engaging with arguments raised rather than smearing with a label? Johnuniq (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

desmay, can you suggest any sources that would better support the current text? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I looked it the articles in more detail. I support the removal even though I disagreed with some of the arguments of those in favor of removal. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I also support removal as the connection between the removed text and the topic of this article is too tenuous. Johnuniq (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on State atheism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170326091156/http://www.instat.gov.al/media/177358/njoftim_per_media_-_fjala_e_drejtorit_te_instat_ines_nurja_per_rezultatet_finale_te_census_2011.pdf to http://www.instat.gov.al/media/177358/njoftim_per_media_-_fjala_e_drejtorit_te_instat_ines_nurja_per_rezultatet_finale_te_census_2011.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130210152726/http://www.amnesty.de/umleitung/2006/deu03/031?lang=de%26mimetype%3Dtext/html to http://www.amnesty.de/umleitung/2006/deu03/031?lang=de%26mimetype%3dtext%2fhtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120826093254/http://www.worldcrunch.com/why-eastern-germany-most-godless-place-planet/culture-society/why-eastern-germany-is-the-most-godless-place-on-earth/c3s5177/ to http://www.worldcrunch.com/why-eastern-germany-most-godless-place-planet/culture-society/why-eastern-germany-is-the-most-godless-place-on-earth/c3s5177/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

North Korea

The section on North Korea concentrates on Christianity, even though Christians are only currently about 1.7% of the population. Chondoism, which has a party in the Korean People's Assembly is ignored.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Cheondoism probably should not be ignored, and neither should other religions. However, I wasn't able to quickly find info which is supported by citeable sources and which has identifiable as-of info. Examples: the relevant CIA Factbook page ([6]) has undated info saying, "traditionally Buddhist and Confucianist, some Christian and syncretic Chondogyo (Religion of the Heavenly Way) ... note: autonomous religious activities now almost nonexistent; government-sponsored religious groups exist to provide illusion of religious freedom". This website has a page ([7]) giving info on religious breakdown which, at a quick look, might be somewhat reliable (see [8] and [9]). However, that web page is personally copyrighted by, I presume, the publisher of the website (who may or may not be this person).

References for assertions in the map

This edit caught my eye. The edit summary says: Sorry to insist, I didn't mean that the map is incorrect, but it just seems to me we need sources as to why these countries are considered (formerly) atheism states, for example, I can't find anything in this article about Afghanistan being an atheism state in history. [...].

I see that the image description page on Wikipedia Commons does cite supporting sources (this is unusual, and I'm happy to see it). As WP policy, as I interpret it, does require that the article should explicitly list sources supporting the assertions made visually by the map, I've added a cite here which echoes the sources listed in that Commons page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

East Germany, China, Vietnam

The text says "East Germany was an atheist state". I am not sure what this is supposed to mean. The churches were allowed to operate, no churches were being demolished or so. I would say that churches had more influence back then in East Germany than they had today. And Art 39 of the GDR constitution guaranteed religion freedom --Johannes Rohr (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The article said that "China is an atheist state", yet again, that's not what the Chinese constitution says. It says that there is religious freedom, although it limits this freedom to state-sanctioned organisations. I have changed this accordingly. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Another country which the article called "officially atheist", whose constitution actually protects relious freedom. Again, state politics in this country may have been anti religious, but the state is not "officially atheist". --Johannes Rohr (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Johannes Rohr, I see you have made some edits that I may have to revert or adjust as I check the sources. The reason is that your claims are not correct. State atheism is not about religious freedoms per se, but about heavy restrictions or even attempts to eliminate religion and theistic beliefs. The definition by the Dictionary of Atheism states "State Atheisms have tended to be as much anti-clerical and anti-religious as they are anti-theist, and typically place heavy restrictions on acts of religious organization and the practice of religion." So generally, you can have government constitutions or official documents that say they allow for religious freedoms, but then have these same governments go out of their way to limit, restrict, or even go as far as to try to eliminate it or convince the masses against religion. There are ranges of State Atheism as there are ranges of theocracies. I highly doubt that you would say that China, Vietnam and East Germany would have protected religious freedoms and practices like the United States has in the past. Obviously there are massive differences between the US and these countries. So technically, religious freedoms on a government document are besides the point since it is whether the government actually protects religious freedoms that really matters here. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Be careful in those reverts as well, as if a cited source does not mention 'state atheism', neither can the article.

This article (conveniently) neglects to mention that 'State atheism', a term absent in most all mainstream references, is a concept invented and promoted by a very select demographic, and this is a glaring omission that must be remedied. In short, if the source doesn't use the term 'state atheism', it can't be used, as that would be WP:OR and WP:ESSAY. TP ✎ ✓ 07:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It gets even worse, when you talk about atheist states than when you merely talke about state atheism. Again, the only state I know that officially labelled itself atheist was Albania under Enver Hoxha. Therefore the claim that xxx is/was an atheist state is simply not correct in other cases, as far as I know. Certainly not for East Germany where I live. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 08:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ramos1990: Sure there are differences between the USA and the GDR (I have difficultities understanding why the English Wikipedia insists on calling it "East Germany", when this is not how the state was called). But then, there are also differences between states like the GDR or communist Poland, which had anti-relious politics, but where churches remained quite powerful, and the only state which I know that was officially atheist and outlawed any religious practice, Albania.

I happen to live in the former GDR, and throughout its entire history, protestant and catholic churches operated, they partly functioned as save spaces for regime critics and arguably had more influence that they do today, Churches were not demolished or converted into barns, thus really, calling the GDR "an atheist state" along with Albania or the Khmer Rouge without even mentioning that the constitution says otherwise seems grossly ahistoric.

Also, the terminology of "atheist state" is not something I have seen anywhere, it looks like original research to me, unless I have overlooked something. It is fair to say that certain states promoted atheism, but it seems like a different thing to call them "atheist states". --Johannes Rohr (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the atheism state is a ambigous term, nowadays these countries seem closer to secular countries. Maybe the only one significant difference is that a secular country donesn't mix its law with religion, while an atheism state furthermore generally requires government officials not be religion-affiliated to ensure government policy not to be affected by religion. Minussquareofa (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)