Talk:Militant atheism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Just a short comment

Came on to this article by random, and just a short comments: Lists on 'people who have been called X' are always, always a bad idea at wikipedia. There is always someone who has called someone something, and these lists easily become synth extraordinaire. What's the real connection between Thomas Hobbes and Kathy Griffin? Furthermore, people's ideas don't come in easily categorized shapes. There are major streams of though (Socialism, Conservatism, Atheism, Buddhism, etc.) around which we can create useful wikipedia articles. But there is always an endless subset of individual variations (which are not defined as a movement of their own), that why she shouldn't have articles like 'Hard-line conservatism', 'moderate atheism', 'pragmatic socialism', 'softcore liberalism', etc.. --Soman (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:horse. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, After (or, better, before) slapping a sticker, please explain your argument clearly. Soman says he just came here, at random. It is close to impossible to understand for him what you mean (and to me as well, BTW). - Altenmann >t 17:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. Soman is re-posting, rehashing, restating what is covered already in various places in varied degrees on the talk page.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thx. <off-topic begin> Unfortunately, this is a common problem with unmoderated discussions. Rarely wikipedia talk pages contain FAQs, indices, and other navigation/search goodies. To read a long talk is usually tiresome. It is good to interpret Soman's (or any other "jumper-in") post as an indication which corner of the table or side of the fense he is on, even it adds no new poins to the discussion. In other words, IMO "dead horse" is better applied to prolonged participants going round and round the same bush. <'off-topic end > - Altenmann >t 19:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Soman, While you are right that there is an endless set of variations, we should and will have articles like pragmatic socialism (is there such thing? I'd really like to learn more about it) provided that the subject is sufficiently covered in academic discourse. At the same time I would agree that if an article can be created only as a random collection of usage quotes, then probably there is no such distinct concept, i.e., it is a mere arbitrary collocation, such as long table, as opposed to round table or poker table. - Altenmann >t 17:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It would nice if we could dispense with the fallacy of Loki's wager.LoveMonkey (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that this particular talk section was opened by Soman who a quick check shows they have started 3070 articles and have over 44,000 edits the approach they take is interesting so, please stop your uncivil snipes to this discussion and focus on the suggestion that a way forward for your additions is to add a new talk section for each change that you want but precisely show what you want added e.g. using Loki as an example, "We should cut above the C-1 vertebrae because it is this vertebrae, the atlas, that supports the head.". The references that you have wanted to add to date failed to be supported by the references you have provided unless someone adopts a rather loose reading of reference. It's not like we don't have enough material for an article so we don't need to scrape the barrel to pad it out with unrelated information that is better placed in other articles. Soman is commenting on the list-like nature of the subject and I think, I could be wrong, that this just supports the idea that we merge the examples into the text. We shouldn't have an "Examples" section in the same way that we shouldn't have a "Criticism" section in other articles because it is turning an article into a list by stealth. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

More attacks, counter attacks, disruptive distractions and time wasting. Wasting time. No one is above criticism. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed in this article there seems to be comments such as:-

Concerns about the use of the term The term militant atheist is sometimes used pejoratively by theists to describe people believed to campaign actively or outspokenly for atheism and against religion. Catherine Fahringer of the Freedom From Religion Foundation suggested that the label militant was often routinely applied to atheist for no good reason–"very much as was the adjective 'damn' attached to the noun 'Yankee' during the Civil War."[36]

The linguist Larry Trask suggests that the word militant "is used all too freely in the feebler sense of 'holding or expressing views which are unpopular or which I don't like'." He notes that Richard Dawkins is "accused by tabloid newspapers and other commentators of being a 'militant atheist'", although, according to Trask, the adjective is never used of Christian activity. Trask concludes, "if you find yourself writing this word, stop and think whether it has any clear meaning, or whether you are just using it as a swearword." [37]

This is biased opinion. It even shows the sources to confirm how biased this opinion is. Are you really including this in an article that is supposed to be factual?

According to the Oxford dictionary "Militant" means openly agressive in support of a cause. That is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.149.80 (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What is yout suggestion about the improvement of the article? By the way, from your text it is unclear which opinion you call biased, so I don't know how to respond.- Altenmann >t 23:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

...to continue a bit; I'd suggest this discussion moves over to an AfD. Having gone through the article, I remain unconvinced between the linkage between Hobbes and 1930s Soviet policies on religion. The Soviet 'god-less movement' is covered elsewhere, and surged in a particular historic and political context. There are various articles which have similar delimitation issues; I also came across Reformist Centre on same day as this one, Revolutionary socialism was nominated for deletion a while back (albeit unsuccesfully), etc.. My core problem is articles built around the structure 'X-ish Y-ism is Y-ism that is X-ish', and then a number of instances were the term 'X-ish Y-ism' is mentioned. Any stream of though can have more or less militant tendencies, the question on which articles should be created/retained is whether there is a distinct stream of thought around which a movement (with a minimum of cohesion) have been formed.

Furthermore, it's not entirely simple as a previously uninvolved editor to enter into a contested article talk page with 30 sections. The 'horse' argument above towards my posting is quite easy to interpret as territorial marking, for a heavily involved editor wanting to keep others from entering the debate. --Soman (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Soman, I thought I answere your concern quite clearly (look for "square table" above). Regardless your logic about common epithets, as long as we have reputed scholarly sources which discuss the concept in essence, the concept becomes encyclopedic. Do you agree or not? The problem with this talk page that the participants spend too much efforts in chat not directly related to making article acceptable to all. - Altenmann >t 16:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing much to discuss here: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Other than that, there is enough sources out there 965 returns on google scholar and 818 on google books to get a decent article written on the subject.--Termer (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing much? So that's why nobody discusses the article text and having fun at each other's throat? I have a couple of very stupid questions: why the article is protected (the real reason, not the technical issue of edit warring) and what must be done to unprotect it (other than ask an admin to do this). Can the involved parties state their mutial disagreementa nd suggestions in short and clear bullet points, so that we can really go forward? I came to this page because I had some text to add, but hit a roadblock. - Altenmann >t 06:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The contentious edits I see as what support there is for these three diffs which had been removed, [1], [2] and [3]. I'd suggested that each would be broken into its own section by the proposing editor/s so I guess we're kind of waiting for the those that are proposing to add the diffs to justify the inclusion with whatever WP:DR they plan to adopt. Ttiotsw (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• God-Building in reference to Nietzsche's Superman and various other atheistic activist ideas that became reality in the Soviet era due to a concerted effort by militant atheism.
• Soviet Anti-Religious Legislation needs more than just a paragraph and just some links to other articles people know about this already and when they come to this article there should be solid data that gives a clear explanation as to what this means to militant atheism and what happened historically.
• Many churches were either destroyed or converted to warehouses and museums as can be seen in the examples of Pochayiv Lavra, Saint Isaac's Cathedral, Donskoy Monastery. There should mention of this practice and a list of examples of churches destroyed or converted and shut due to militant atheistic activities.
• Jacques Maritain -clarification of this position and how he is mentioned in relation to atheism today[4].

• Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett as militant atheists needs to be in a different section then the lead. Here's Stanford referring to both of them as militant atheists-

LoveMonkey (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

For God-Building even Wikipedia says that it was not effected because of Soviet policy (we say "proposed by some prominent Marxists of the Soviet Union, but which was never adopted,". Thus it is unclear if the militant atheists were supporting the God-Building or if the militant atheists were not supporting the God-Building. Was God-Building an expression of the Übermensch ? You imply it is so (assuming you can reference that) then please reference the next step from that to the militant atheist (which is what this article is about after all).

The Soviet Anti-Religious Legislation and the examples of Pochayiv Lavra, Saint Isaac's Cathedral, Donskoy Monastery are better placed in the anti-religious articles, though the example of Pochayiv Lavra has very little WP:WEIGHT relationship to atheism given that Pochayiv Lavra was traded back and forth for hundreds of years and eventually a building ended up as a museum to atheism and Saint Isaac's Cathedral was abandoned, then turned into a museum of atheism. Not clear how Donskoy Monastery figures in this. It was closed during a civil war, which AFAIK isn't usually defined as being between "atheist" and "theists" but Red and White. The link to George_H._Smith writing about Jacques Maritain maligning atheists in The Range of Reason simply highlights that Maritain tried to describe the hobby of not collecting stamps using a tone that is almost reminiscent of earlier ad hominem descriptions of Jews by Christians, and failed. This is related to "militant atheist" how ?. The Stanford entry for Dawkins and Dennett is by Michael Ruse. I guess as he calls them militant atheists we can include it here. Dawkins and Dennett together show how the term is used in a contemporary way. Their sharp wit and tongue is in contrast to the sharp sticks of an earlier era and so in body count they are way behind but in being defined explicitly as "militant atheists" then they are more applicable then the other notionally related actors were told had a role of militant atheist. These should stay in the WP:LEDE. Ttiotsw (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

--"God-Building or if the militant atheists were not supporting the God-Building. Was God-Building an expression of the Übermensch ? You imply it is so (assuming you can reference that) then please reference the next step from that to the militant atheist (which is what this article is about after all)."

So if I show how say Yemelyan Yaroslavsky supported God Building what then? As Yemelyan Yaroslavsky was the head of the league of Militant Atheists and the Anti-Religious Committee. Like say this book here that talks about exactly what I am saying..

• New Myth, New World: From Nietzsche to Stalinism by Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal Publisher: Pennsylvania State University Press (November 2002) ISBN-10: 0271022183,ISBN-13: 978-0271022185

or these........

• What the God-seekers found in Nietzsche: The Reception of Nietzsches Übermensch by the Philosophers of the Russian Religious Renaissance. (Studies in Slavic Literature & Poetics) by Nel Grillaert

• Nietzsche and Soviet Culture: Ally and Adversary (Cambridge Studies in Russian Literature) by Nietzsche and Soviet Culture: Ally and Adversary (Cambridge Studies in Russian Literature) various authors edited by Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal Publisher: Cambridge University Press ISBN-10: 0521452813, ISBN-13: 978-0521452816

• Nietzsche in Russia Publisher by Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal Princeton Univ Pr ISBN-10: 0691102090 ISBN-13: 978-0691102092

• Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical by Chris Matthew Sciabarra Publisher: Pennsylvania State University Press ISBN-10: 0271014415

• The Returns of History: Russian Nietzscheans After Modernity by Dragan Kujundzic Publisher: State University of New York Press ISBN-10: 0791432343 ISBN-13: 978-0791432341

• Dimitry V. Pospielovsky. A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory, and Practice, and the Believer, vol 1: A History of Marxist-Leninist Atheism and Soviet Anti-Religious Policies, St Martin's Press,

• Great Soviet encyclopedia, ed. A. M. Prokhorov (New York: Macmillan, London: Collier Macmillan, 1974–1983) 31 volumes, three volumes of indexes.

• The Russian Church and the Soviet State by John Curtiss, 1917-1950 (Boston: Little, Brown, 1953)

• Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless by Daniel Peris Cornell University Press 1998 ISBN 9780801434853

• Sacred causes : the clash of religion and politics from the Great War to the War on Terror. by Michael Burleigh 1st ed. New York: HarperCollins,

• The Origins of Soviet Anti-religious Organizations by Joan Delaney

• Religious and anti-religious thought in Russia By George Louis Kline

LoveMonkey (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Then if Yemelyan Yaroslavsky supported the God building and there is a clear relationship between the God-Building and the Übermensch then add that content to those articles but there are WP:WEIGHT issues to then add that here on the grounds that because someone supported something then the article for some-other-thing can have stuff added about the something because the someone is an example of some-other-thing. It has even more weight issues with the God-Building being added here given the idea wasn't actually effected anyway. If the God-building was an idea that was effected and was actively pursued as the Soviet policy and that we have WP:RS that are clear that this is an expression of Militant Atheism then fine, it can be included, but as it wasn't effected and we have mixed views on who supported the idea, then why should it be added here ?. Ttiotsw (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify with sources were you have arrived at "mixed views on who supported the idea?" There is no indication of this. Is there a source you have different then mine that you have not shared?LoveMonkey (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have already explain why it fails on the grounds of WP:WEIGHT given if you see God-Building then we have it that "was an idea proposed by some prominent Marxists of the Soviet Union, but which was never adopted, and it was suppressed by the Official Ideology.". So we have militant atheists supporting the idea and militant atheists not supporting the idea. Well gee so they can't work out if they want their borscht hot or cold. This is relevant for here how ? Ttiotsw (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You just mentioned undue weight. There is no already explained. I also did not ask you that.I asked you to source or validate the assumption you posted ""mixed views on who supported the idea?" Why are you now mentioning borscht? This appears to be an attempt to distract. Who as a scholarly source expressed that the idea was mixed? The idea was well known Stalin said no but the idea did not go away any more then Goebbels did as head of culture and propaganda against the religion of Judaism. As for God Building Undue weight is not appropriate as history is history as can be seen in how the militant atheists repressed religion and attempted to take it language and culture significance and pervert it for it own means just look at the The Monument to the Third International and to what that actually caused.[5] Also you are not being historical nor reflecting the history as understood by people who are part of the Soviet and Russian culture.[6] I such I do not understand why it is singularly up to you and that I have to convince you of anything in order for information to be included in the article. As long as I follow wikipedia policy these things appear to be valid and it appears to me you are abusing and misusing the policies of wikipedia to suppress and censor information that you do not like. Look at the article I posted Regelson. How is it that he is so misinformed about his own culture? How is it that he says as I have said that Stalin's anti-religious agenda was partially carried out by the League of Militant atheists and you keep posting that anti-religious acts belong in the anti-religious articles and only stuff explicitly labeled militant atheism belongs in the militant atheist article. How is it that militant atheists can not engage in anti-religious behavior? You are abusing and misusing wikipedia policy to edit war.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If I am editwaring then please report me at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring though I fail to see how this can be true given I haven't actually edited the article since the 3rd September 2009 with this edit [7] but I am happy to follow whatever dispute resolution that you want to initiate. On the subject of the content the onus is on you to show how it is relevant here. I'm pretty confident I've addressed each of your proposed edits. I've already showed that the God-building is just unrelated crud and certainly don't see how the Tatlin's Tower is relevant here. I'm not even going to bother explaining the borscht hot or cold too much but ignoring bizarre flavours, Borscht is broadly hot or cold; it is not encyclopaedic that some group can't decide which way: equally it is not encyclopaedic that some group can't decide on some policy related to God-building or some tower. Ttiotsw (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

OK then I'll start making additions then.LoveMonkey (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is edit-warring. But it is very hard to follow this. What are you (LoveMonkey) proposing should be added to the article? It might be helpful, in fact, if you could provide an outline of the overall structure of the article as you see it. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Your still in denial. The article got locked for a reason you committed 3rr. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

So how are you proposing to develop the article? In view of its recent history, it would be wise to propose before doing. I posted my proposed outline above (under Second suggestion: article structure). What's yours? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 10:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

???? I even put it in bullet points already in this section. Are kidding? You missed a good half of this section that I have contributed and then the arguing over what of it is appropriate?LoveMonkey (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all for making a serious effort to discuss changes here. I hope no reminder is needed that, since this article has been at WP:AN3, it is now being watched by admins. Any one-sided edits that are not backed by a Talk page consensus may lead to immediate sanction by admins, without the need to show three reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

@LoveMonkey - Oh, sorry, I had kind of lost that bit, as there's so much other stuff surrounding it. I suggest we start a new section on "proposed structure" or some such heading. Below. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed structure

My initial observation is that I think LoveMonkey's list of topics to include (above) has too much detail on matters that are better treated elsewhere (e.g. Soviet Anti-Religious Legislation, Mass killings under Communist regimes). This article should be restricted to the term "militant atheism" (and obvious variants), and should not stray into describing the actions of those who are only "militant atheists" because some Wikipedia editors consider them so. Where, for example, is the evidence that those Russian churches (Pochayiv Lavra, Saint Isaac's Cathedral, Donskoy Monastery are mentioned above) were destroyed in the name of militant atheism? Atheism, no doubt - but who is applying the epithet 'militant'?SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There you go. I agree.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and since the 19th January when I said, "The Soviet Anti-Religious Legislation and the examples of Pochayiv Lavra, Saint Isaac's Cathedral, Donskoy Monastery are better placed in the anti-religious articles, though the example of Pochayiv Lavra has very little WP:WEIGHT relationship to atheism given that Pochayiv Lavra was traded back and forth for hundreds of years and eventually a building ended up as a museum to atheism and Saint Isaac's Cathedral was abandoned, then turned into a museum of atheism. Not clear how Donskoy Monastery figures in this. It was closed during a civil war, which AFAIK isn't usually defined as being between "atheist" and "theists" but Red and White." then what the other editors have said in reply to what I said or me hasn't really convinced me that I'm wrong in my assessment. Ttiotsw (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No No and No Donskoy Monastery is now, right now, the center for studies of the militant atheist.[8][9] So maybe you are just uniformed. Since I do not and can not know it all, then I too am uniformed. So let us work together.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would the practical actions of militant atheists -- which we see every time they have ever been in power -- be unrelated to the meaning of the term? You might as well try to separate violence against blacks from an article on the KKK. And obliviously it was not a bunch of pacifist atheists that destroyed those Churches. What sort of nonsense question is that? How could you define that as being anything other than an example of militant atheism? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Your right this is how the Russians feel about it.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Except that the cause of events seems to be some despotism be it based on a Monarchy, Theology, Nationalism or Communism !. This article is not about these other *isms. Ttiotsw (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Who are these "militant atheists", and by whose definition are they "militant"? We cannot create an article documenting a collection of misdeeds of the atheists we dislike and consider militant - any more than we can write about some of the nice things done by Christians we happen to admire and call it "charitable Christianity". It is pure OR and SYN. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Again they actually called themselves militant atheists. That is what they called themselves and that is what the Soviet called them. It was the name they went by. Why is that so hard? So now interfax is lying too [10] As is the Oxford companion.

"In 1939–41, the USSR was still in the grip of militant atheism. In the countries occupied by the Red Army at that time, vicious purges took place against religious leaders of all faiths. The Uniate Church in eastern Poland (western Ukraine) was banned. Large numbers of pastors, priests, and rabbis were deported to the GUlag together with believers. In principle, no religious congregation was permitted to exercise an independent role within the community."[11]
You are not following wiki policy. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Also there are the forced foreclosures like..

The Church of The Ressurection in Kadashy

And here are more sources to validate...

• The Russian Orthodox Church, state and society in 1991-1993: The rest of the story

Author: William Van Den Bercken

Commissars in Red Cassocks: Former Priests in the League of the Militant Godless, by Daniel Peris

As I.M. Andreyev wrote:

"The militant atheist-materialist ideology of the Soviet State could not be reconciled with the existence of the Church and strove by all means to annihilate her as its principal ideological adversary. Soviet power openly and actively fought against religion and the Church, wishing to destroy her completely. The word 'Christian' became equivalent to 'counter-revolutionary'."

Why are we Orthodox being treated as delusional? As if we fabricated what happened? Why is there bickering to cover up the murder of people? Why are you twisting policy to silence this history? It belongs here. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(←) LoveMonkey - instead of accusing people of breaking the rules and "twisting policy" (where, incidentally? - no, don't bother to answer that), would you please focus on the issue and try to help? Yes, I am ignorant of the details of the subject. But I am not trying to cover anything up or suggest that anyone is fabricating anything. Please deal with this in a civil manner, and adhere to the function of a Wikipedia talk page. We are trying to work out what is best for the article. And on that subject - if the perpetrators of something called themselves militant athesists, or if they are clearly so labelled in a reliable source (though that is not how I read the comment from Frjohnwhiteford above), then it seems reasonable to include a mention. So far so good. But (a) I don't see the word "militant" in one of the sources you cite above ([12]), and (b) we must go on from this to ask ourselves how much detail is relevant and useful in this article, as opposed to the others that cover the various ways in which the Soviet authorities suppressed religion. I submit that this is not the right place to go into detail. Now, please stop using this talk page as a soap box and address the issues. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

??? I just posted at least three more historical sources and potential data that needed to be added into the article. Could we address that? Now I figured you would miss it so I literally copied and pasted from the link on question that you just posted (even before you posted it) the section that uses the term militant atheism. How did you miss that? Is it because you are not really reading my posts and just responding? This is the second time you've done that to me. Why? This is what is prompting my frustration. here I'll post it yet again.

"In 1939–41, the USSR was still in the grip of militant atheism. In the countries occupied by the Red Army at that time, vicious purges took place against religious leaders of all faiths. The Uniate Church in eastern Poland (western Ukraine) was banned. Large numbers of pastors, priests, and rabbis were deported to the GUlag together with believers. In principle, no religious congregation was permitted to exercise an independent role within the communityLoveMonkey (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As for your comment that you are not accusing anyone of fabrication. That is complete nonsense. The locations I have name that are included in this section of the discussion you removed under the justification that to include them was original research. [13]. Why are you doing this? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Until other editors are prepared to act in a civil manner and stop bandying silly accusations around, I withdraw from this discussion. I recommend a little study of WP policiies, in particular those relating to WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYN and WP:AGF. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you practice what you preach. You should at least read editors posts before criticizing them. You keep not listening but want to be heard. You can criticize but not be criticized??? Your repetitive oversight is disruptive and your horrible excuses and distorting of wiki policy to edit war, are against the spirit of the wikipedia community. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, you repeatedly re-edit your comments which makes it very hard to get a word in. Of the past 50 talk edits in history you occupy 30 (60%) and of the past 100 edits you occupy over 50%. You repeatedly re-edit your text. Please stop this. This is why I have asked you to put what changes you want into new sections and not interleave them into existing talk page sections. You will not get large blocks of text added to the article with the approach you are taking because we can't establish the WP:CONCENSUS because we can't even see what it is that you want added. Ttiotsw (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

OK I apologize. Now please address what I suggested thank you.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is a suggested addition, "Large numbers of pastors, priests, and rabbis were deported to the Gulag together with believers." Lets discuss how we can incorporate this information into the body of the article text.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is my answer: not in a new section, it is unreferenced, oh and it seems like undue weight given the great purge seemed to pretty well focus on *everyone* - the military, land owners, *criminals*, writers, poets, Buddhists...you name it. That you've cherry-picked a few examples, more characterised as a group with an institutionalised martyr complex, isn't a good reason to privilege those few here. It is actually worse though because such a presentation obscures the root cause of the events, which is the despotism of a few and they can be of any faith or none. Ttiotsw (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Why does any of this stuff belong in this seperate article, instead of in one or several of the other wikipedia articles talking about similar subjects? Specifically, if this article is really about the groups who adopted the name "militant atheist" in the Soviet Union, why isn't the information being added to the wikipedia article on Society of the Godless--Dannyno (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Finding suitable refs that give due, but not undue, weight

These were very serious crimes and they were cerainly committed with an explicit anti-religious intent. Millions were killed and we should recognise that fact and the understandably strong feelings it evokes. Maybe we could focus on the best 1-2 quotes from WP:RSs with references, that explicity link it to "militant atheist" or "militant atheism" and do a "see also". The Andreyev quote might be a good start, but what is the precise ref? NBeale (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit wary of incorporating examples in this fashion - I wouldn't want people cramming references about the Crusades into the Christianity article either - they have a "see also" to Criticisms of Christianity. I'd personally suggest this article should have more about the actual subject - what militant atheism is, as well as what it was. Referencing Marxist-Leninist thought will no doubt be appropriate, along with some other areas, but Soviet mass killings should be in Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes with a "see also" IMO.

Just as a note in case this conversation progresses like the ones above, could people please make sure to use colons to indent their posts - the comments above this section are a real pain to follow. Random name (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There is already an article about most of the stuff you seem to want to talk about here. See for example, Society of the Godless, and many others. Why has *another* article been created for the same material? --Dannyno (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Because they called themselves militant atheists. Because they did what they did as a manifestation of their position as militant atheists. Because there are now militant atheists East and West trying to rehabilitate the title without acknowledging the facts and history of the term worldwide. Why are editors with systemic bias problems attempting to censor facts and history about the term? Why should other articles specifically about the Soviet Unions manifestation of the term be the only article (or articles) about the term? Why can this article not contain full disclosure of the term? As for the crusades in the Christian article I'm all for including it and if we want full disclosure why not mention that some crusades where against "other" Christians (ie Sack of Constantinople). Lets air it all, as us Orthodox are not perfect, but no where did Orthodox Christianity round up atheists (cause they were atheists) and kill them or create concentration camps for them under a system called gulag. Or take their homes or their buildings and blow them up. But this DID happen to Christians when atheists took their country over and it happened under the term this article is named after. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The transition in that part of Europe was as a result of a civil war. There were no other outside state actors (AFAIK). The belligerents in the civil war were not Christians v. Atheists but much more complex divisions across political and social boundaries which your focus will fail to highlight. I believe that religion is a necessary thing to help guide those in society but the problem is that religions are so wedded to a belief in god they fail to address the needs of those that have no belief in god. It's not like one day there were *no* atheists and then the next day there were a whole Bolshevik army; not having a belief in something that has no tangible evidence other than complex teleological and ontological arguments is the defacto condition for humanity and it is only social conformity that maintains the illusion of theism (that and being killed if you said that there was no god). A typical society at the time is mostly made up of peasants and it's unreasonable to expect them to understand and know the cosmological argument in their heart is true. Immediately someone else tells them there is no god then they are OK with that. They never understood the arguments for the existence of god anyway and I'm certain they never would understand dialectic materialism. This is the great delusion of theocrats of the time though I'm pretty confident most modern theologians understand this Damocles sword. In Russia the prevalent religion was even worse in that it only cared for those that wanted the monarchy and wanted to maintain the same living conditions for those that had land. To characterise the civil war in Russia as Christian verse Atheist ignores this fight against the monarchy and social disparities. I imagine that the cards would have been dealt differently if the religion fought for more representation of the people on the lines of the other Western European nations, more secularisation and less reliance on a monarch along the lies of the United Kingdom model of a titular head. That's in hindsight though and they choose the wrong side. Shit happens and it's got nothing to do with belief in god. This is why it is undue weight to include partisan references to every paper-cut because you may find someone says that it may have been done by so-called "militant atheists". Ttiotsw (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

So the best you got to excuse the murder of 10s of millions of people is "shit happens" and their deaths were just little boo boos like a paper cut. And that somehow people who got their religion persecuted are just over-reacting. The worst is to see the response from a group of atheists who at every turn cry fowl at every "religious indiscretion" and really obviously don't want their "anti-religious indiscretions" also pointed out. And I haven't even gotten started on Mao and the militant atheistic things he did the religious folks under him. Your wrong and under the official name militant atheism the Soviet did these things again they did them under the official title militant atheism. All your pedantic wrangling and hairsplitting will not change that not one bit. And you and the gang of atheist apologists on here who protest at every edit and suggestion and edit war are going to get banned from the article not by me. BY abusing the rules and policies here in order to keep out things about this topic your position doesn't like.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:FORUM. I've explained very clearly why your edits have an undue WP:WEIGHT and a summary of my worldview which is the philosophical basis for my claims. Your reply here once more repeats uncivil accusations which, truthfully are not unexpected but we live in hope. If you have a problem with content i.e. if you have a content dispute than please start WP:DR clearly showing which edits are in dispute. If you have a problem with an editor then please start an WP:RFC regarding that editor. If asking for clean references to support content is pedantic then I'm pedantic. If spending an hour going over an article to track down where a vandal added nonsense and then backtracking through the vandals other edits to undo other crap is pedantic, then I'm pedantic. I do NOT edit war. I have never been blocked from editing, ever, and I never expect to be blocked. I use the talk pages. I find it gets the right WP:CONSENSUS. If you have a problem with people actually talking back and you find yourself struggling to compete well then perhaps that's just what consensus feels like. You're going to have to live with it. Ttiotsw (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Then practice what you preach and apologize for saying shit happens. The language is inappropriate. That's not civil or forum and you are abusing policy period.LoveMonkey (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but please read WP:CENSOR. Wikipedia is not censored and I used the correct term of "shit happens", which as you can see we have a Wikipedia page on it, so it is a notable phrase. For religions in general the idea is extrapolated here [14] which oddly enough seems to have a rather salient entry for the orthodox. I can easily establish the relationship between "shit happens" and "Religion" without hitting WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. I suppose I could have bowdlerized it as "shift happens" but this is more of a meme usage from a Dilbert strip of I think 1997 and AFAIK has never really been used WRT religion. Ttiotsw (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Policy tells you to not use profanity. You again wrangle and argue rather then engaging in civility. As I too am being bold.LoveMonkey (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this included anywhere in Wikipedia? Cites for such an interpretation would be good content for the Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union page if you edit there. Random name (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup - my text is just a summary of the Russian Civil War. Ttiotsw (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"editors with systemic bias problems attempting to censor facts and history" Thus far all I've expressed is an opinion - let's please try to keep this civil. Looking at it, I see Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union, Soviet_Anti-Religious_Legislation, Society_of_the_Godless, USSR_Anti-Religious_Campaign_(1917-1921), USSR_Anti-Religious_Campaign_(1921-1928), USSR_Anti-Religious_Campaign_(1958-1964) and USSR_Anti-Religious_Campaign_(1970s-1990) all focusing on the sorts of things you want to highlight. I'm not sure why we need to duplicate content - by all means wikilink these (ideally just Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union and perhaps Society_of_the_Godless, as the others all link off from that). Wikipedia certainly does not seem to be shying away from the issue - I just don't see a reason to duplicate all of this. Random name (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Really is it bad for an editor to tell me to get over it its a lie and shit happens. Thanks for missing that one and many others. Any reason why your being one sided (since my comment was not directed at you)? And now is as good as any to start being fair about it. Well. As for your other comments none of the other articles are called militant atheism and there is zero reason to believe that what happened in the USSR and China under that title or phrase does not belong under it in English.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW Random I already tried to wikilink to the articles and the wikilinks were removed from the article.[15] Hence my criticism of peoples behavior and their edit warring.LoveMonkey (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The atrocities committed by militant atheists against Christians were not limited to the Civil War. The intensity of those atrocities actually increased when the civil war was over. The 1930's was the worst of it, and there was no Civil War going on during that time... just a systematic attempt to eradicate any trace of Christianity from the Country by its militant atheist rulers. Those are just the facts. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That's what happens when a despot gets into power. Doesn't matter what faith they are. This is why its undue weight. Ttiotsw (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And you base this assertion on what? There have been a great many despots in history. None that tried to eradicate religion by destroying Churches, killing clergy, killing monastics, and killing any laity that became a problem or got in the way. That would be unique to... militant atheists... thus it is not undue weight. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Last year it was interesting that the Franciscans were advertising that they started in 1209. I never saw any adverts from the Cathars saying that they were kind of wiped out 1209 onwards to provide a balancing POV from that time. This epitomises the basis of my complaint on the lop-sided focus of the concept of Militant Atheism for the past 150 years. Ttiotsw (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. You dodged the point and as obvious will continue to not address that the the league of Militant atheisms' persecutions happened after the Civil War. And were anti-theistic in nature not strictly about power. Why is it that we are addressing religious persecution and you keep trying to frame it as unique to the Civil War. Militant atheism took power lopsided in just the past 150 years. You are obviously not going to be fair in your judgment. As for the Cathars take that up with the Pope. The Orthodox can relate to what it feels like to be the target of a pogrom, a jihad, and a crusade or two. Your comments are ignorant of the East.LoveMonkey (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

And that is why we need you to add good references to Militant Atheism not any old reference. It has clearly use the term rather than simply using it as a passing reference whilst focusing on "Soviets" or "communists" or "Bolshevicks". Just as you do not wish to have the Orthodox church associated with the deeds of Catholics because they have in common, Christianity, then equally it is fair that the broad philosophical movement of atheism should not be a stepping stone from Communism to Militant Atheism.Ttiotsw (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to distance yourself from those who support spreading atheism by force, you should love the term "militant atheist", because it quickly distinguishes that type of atheist from all others. So what's your problem then? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't distance myself from something that is already so distant from me. The closest I get to communism is a head-nod towards anarcho-syndicalism and the closest to atheism is my secular humanism. I have no idea why you would even think I would need to distance myself. I'm indifferent to the term "atheist" or "militant" or any combination. Our roles here are to avoid talking about the other editors but focusing on their edits and to question editors who use WP:SYNTH to advance a position that is not supported by references. What do you see your role here as ?. Ttiotsw (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Which despot? The league of militant atheists was under more than one Premier.LoveMonkey (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Nicholas II obviously. A fire has started before the flames are visible. This focus on one point in history is why it's undue weight too. Ttiotsw (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Not true and more pedantic wrangling. You are completely distorting the issue. Even if it was strictly just a case of Civil War fall out then the targets of the attacks would not have been religious. Nor would they have been punished for being religious, as it is quite obvious that people were punished for saying the wrong thing (see Yakov Peters) and not for being theists. The justification "officially given" was that religion was bad and needed to be eradicated. My source for this is The Oxford Companion for World War II [16] which is not partisan. As the repression it continued long after Stalin and the Civil War. It is the same rhetoric that militant atheists still used today. Where they excuse or justify repressing people. If what you say is true then why is this on wikipedia......Christopher Hitchens (a militant atheist [17]) from the mouth of this Western militant atheist shows that this is a supported position that Lenin did good to kill and repress religion. ... In 2005, Hitchens praised Lenin's creation of "secular Russia" and his destruction of the Russian Orthodox Church, describing it as "an absolute warren of backwardness and evil and superstition." Go read his article its there in the article. The persecution of the Orthodox church by militant atheists is hardly a paper cut or a Russian phenomenon. Hitchens wasn't talking about Nicholas II and even Nicholas II has to take czarian responsibility for Bloody Sunday. Hardly as distorted a historical understanding that you use to justify your censorshipLoveMonkey (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:TALK for guidelines on how to use the talk pages. No one is really listening to you because,

A) you steadfastly seem to refuse to structure your arguments to the quite reasonable conventions of the talk page. Please use the colon key to format your reply. The more colons then the further it goes to the right. If it goes too far right then it is OK to use (outdent) and start from the left again.

B) You seem to be unclear on which article and which concept we're discussing. Once again with the Hitchens' reference, the link you provided does not mention "Militant atheism" which is kind of a theme with the references you provide, but I live in hope that we'll find *something* you can add. At least Hitchens' assessment is a WP:RS but we should use that in the Russian Orthodox articles to highlight what an "absolute warren of backwardness and evil and superstition" they were rather than here which is about the concept of "Militant atheist". Ttiotsw (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

More distractions and attempts to frustrate your comments are disruptive and you are using policy to distract from the points given. And most importantly you do not speak for everyone or anyone (but yourself) so stop saying things in a way that implies that you do. More Style over substance fallacy.LoveMonkey (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Do not redact your talk page edits after people have already replied. In the future can you please ask permission from the other editors that have already replied and use the delete and insert tags as per Wikipedia:REDACT#Own_comments. Normally you would place this note on a user talk page but you think it should be in the article page so here it is. Ttiotsw (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

OK will do. Now address the issues at hand. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You are going to have to start a new section detailing the exact texts that you want to add and show the exact references that you want to support them. Ideally break down the changes into atomic commits rather than listing multiple differences across sections.Ttiotsw (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I already added some suggestions with bullets.LoveMonkey (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This is going nowhere, fast. It is apparent to me that at least some editors here are using this article to pursue a POV agenda of . Indeed, it's been admitted above ("there are now militant atheists East and West trying to rehabilitate the title without acknowledging the facts and history of the term worldwide"). The facs about the repression of religious institutions in the USSR are covered by a great many wikipedia articles. We do not need another one, especially one which is not actually about a concept. Militant atheism was one of the descriptions used for atheist activism and theory in the USSR, and there are articles where it is appropriate to describe what it meant in that historical context. Beyond that, there is no settled concept of "militant atheism" in the literature. This article is an unnecessary battleground, and that's because none of the arguments here can be settled by appeal to verifiable sources. --Dannyno (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It is apparent that you intent under the weakest of excuses to repress the terrible things militant atheists did. As there is no policy saying that there are too many articles about anything of history here on wikipedia. Stop chiming in to waste peoples time with arguments that will not stand to justify why you are against history of a specific topic being included under a specific topic. Since what is being said you you appears to be that a group called militant atheism committed mass murder in the name of militant atheism and somehow that should not be included under the article militant atheism. That makes no sense and your argument that somehow that should not be clarified as to what militant atheists did under an article called militant atheism because there are other articles about kinda the same thing is not logical nor policy. As history is not up to any of us to decide, it either happened or it did not. It is not up to you to decide. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I find the Wikipedia:assume good faith principle a helpful one. I have explained my concerns about the article and explained the basis of those concerns. These concerns have not been taken up more widely, which I recognise. I don't appreciate being told to "stop" raising these concerns which so far as I can see remain unaddressed: you say it makes no sense - why not? My position is that "militant atheism" is not in fact a specific topic at all, except that it was used in relation to certain groups in the history of the repression of religion in the USSR. We both agree that religion was repressed in the USSR, and that religious repression should be covered by wikipedia. I disagree that "militant atheism" is an encyclopedic concept. --Dannyno (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The word "sometimes" in the lead sentence

I'm wondering about the phrase "The terms militant atheism and militant atheist are sometimes pejorative designations..." - is there a reason for the word "sometimes" in there? I'm not aware of any people putting a positive spin on the word outside of the historical context as took place in the Soviet Union - if Dawkins or someone has used the term positively, that would be worth including as an example of non-pejorative use. Random name (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if the comment or opinion or observation or whatever you want to call it can be sourced. Maybe Oxford Philosophy encyclopedia can help.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There is AFAIK no evidence that it is always used perjoratively. Even outside the Soviet Union people have proudly claimed to be M.A. NBeale (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you'll never find evidence proving that is always used pejoratively - that would require the examination of every single use of the phrase. That said, I'm pretty comfortable saying most are - let me see what I can find. Random name (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There is definitely evidence that it is often used in a non-pejorative sense, by both friend and foe alike. Therefore, to simply state that it is used pejoratively, without saying "sometimes" would be a misleading statement. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There is of course Dawkins' TED talk from 2002 (transcript and CNN commentary), where he somewhat facetiously used the term. 77.4.54.228 (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens' comment about the Russian Orthodox Church

I have just deleted this sentence from the end of the section on Marxism-Leninism: Modern Western militant atheist Christopher Hitchens[15] praised Lenin's creation of "secular Russia" and his destruction of the Russian Orthodox Church, describing the Russian Orthodox Church as "an absolute warren of backwardness, evil and superstition."[16] - I cannot see that this has any place here, for it consists of a synthesis of two quite separate pieces of information: (1) that Hitchens has been called a militant atheist (which has already been established in the lead of the article); (2) that Hitchens praised Lenin and said something rude about the Orthodox Church. The description of Hitchens as a militant atheist is a point of view, and should not be presented as fact, and in any case it is irrelevant in the context of this section of the article. The second is pointless, adding nothing of value to our understanding of what went on in the name of militant atheism in the Soviet Union. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I like the reference though but I too just can't seem to make it fit. The text added by LoveMonkey describes Hitchens' as one that "praised Lenin's creation of "secular Russia" and his destruction of the Russian Orthodox Church, describing the Russian Orthodox Church as "an absolute warren of backwardness, evil and..." but the reference actually says, "The war had already pre-destroyed a lot of the old order for him (Lenin)" and that "It had crucially undermined the autocracy,"... and that "it had very much discredited the Russian Orthodox Church,". So the process of "destroying" the Church was "it", it being the War. That Lenin then was happy to continue the process is a clean up of a destruction already started. The crucial sentence has no link of "destroy" between "One of Lenin's great achievements, in my opinion, is to create a secular Russia." and the claim that "The power of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was an absolute warren of backwardness and evil and superstition, is probably never going to recover from what he did to it.". Hitchens' praises the creation of a secular Russia and certainly doesn't paint the Russian Orthodox Church in a very good light but it is a synthesis to join those sentences. It is somewhat odd why these references don't document the improvements under "Militant atheism" i.e. the "secular Russia" and equally they seem to avoid documenting the paradise for the Russians under the Tzars and their Orthodox lords spiritual. We just seem to have the gory details of a conflict initiated before "Militant Atheism" but one in which the outcomes are all attributed to "Militant Atheism". Its lopsided. Ttiotsw (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That is a distortion. Here is the first section of Hitchens answer from the PBS website to the question.

"As Lenin tried to transform Russia into a socialist state, did he leave any of the old government intact? Lenin's Russia was an attempt to start from scratch. The war had already pre-destroyed a lot of the old order for him. It had destroyed the Czarist army for example, turned it into a rabble, which the strongest element, the strongest element were mutineers who already supported the Bolshevik party. It had crucially undermined the autocracy, the Romanov dynasty. And I think it had very much discredited the Russian Orthodox Church, for which he had a particular dislike. But he was very willing to finish those jobs, all three of them, to wipe out the Romanov family, to rebuild the army, and under Trotsky's leadership of the Red Army, and to seize the opportunity to confiscate church property and to dissolve, as far as possible, the influence of the church. One of Lenin's great achievements, in my opinion, is to create a secular Russia. The power of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was an absolute warren of backwardness and evil and superstition, is probably never going to recover from what he did to it."LoveMonkey (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright so since it has been established that I do not need to source that Hitchens is a militant atheist but I do need to clarify it in order to show what a high profile person in the West who is known for being a militant atheist has said what they think of what happened in Russia under the atheistic regime there. Maybe since it does not fit at the end of the section (even though I believe it does if for anything then chronology) then I propose this wording under a criticism section instead.

Modern Western militant atheist Christopher Hitchens praised Lenin's creation of "secular Russia" and his destruction of the Russian Orthodox Church, stating "One of Lenin's great achievements, in my opinion, is to create a secular Russia. The power of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was an absolute warren of backwardness and evil and superstition, is probably never going to recover from what he did to it."LoveMonkey (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(←) I have no idea where the notion that "it has been established that I do not need to source that Hitchens is a militant atheist" comes from. I would restate two points: (1) We cannot simply attach the label "Modern Western militant atheist" to Hitchens as if it is a simple fact; it is just an opinion. (2) I fail to see the relevance of Hitchens to this section anyway. I guess he is brought in because a couple of people have applied the MA label to him - but that does not mean that his comments are in any way useful. What is the point of quoting Hitchens in a section about the militant atheism of the Soviet state, a section that already clearly establishes the facts? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 21:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Not again reading but wanting to be read. You Snalwibma wrote : (1) that Hitchens has been called a militant atheist (which has already been established in the lead of the article);. From this I concluded that for this discussed addition since Hitchens is already sourced in the lead as militant atheist that I now don't need to source it again. Show me with valid sourcing where "Modern Western militant atheist" to Hitchens as if it is a simple fact; it is just an opinion." I source were Hitchens is referred to as militant atheist you provide a valid source were it states my source is an opinion. You can contact Professor Andrew Fiala (for the record he's an agnostic) at his website [18] to tell him its all his opinion.LoveMonkey (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The first problem is that the reference that mingles the transformation of the political landscape from Tsarist Russia to Secular Russia doesn't actually mention the word "Atheist" or "Militant". I really do want the cite in as it highlights that the fabric of the evil of autocratic rule can be woven from plain cloth or silk. Given we have a whole article on [[[Christopher Hitchens's political views]], seems POV that we would pick a description that some 3rd party describes him. It will always be an opinion; there is no ontological fact that can establish "militant atheism". There is no certification process and unless he has self-described himself as this then it is a rather minor aspect. In this reference it is conjecture that Lenin's process to "confiscate church property and to dissolve, as far as possible, the influence of the church." implies "destroyed" when the section in the reference is titled "Lenin tried to transform Russia into a socialist state". When you remove a bad thing from society then it is a reform so why pick "destroyed" and not "transform(ed)" which is in the reference ? The time that "destroyed" is used in the PBS reference you provide is to refer to events that started prior to Lenin. So a better sentence is that, "The journalist Christopher Hitchens praised Lenin's creation of "secular Russia" and his transformation of the Russian Orthodox Church, stating "One of Lenin's great achievements, in my opinion, is to create a secular Russia. The power of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was an absolute warren of backwardness and evil and superstition, is probably never going to recover from what he did to it.". I just don't see how this should be in here though. Ttiotsw (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So why (without noting Christopher Hitchens is a militant atheist) is what Hitchens stating relevant? Also I'm going to add this for future reference and not to address your willful distortion [19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27], [28].LoveMonkey (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

[29] is a oped opinion piece that doesn't elaborate on the "militant atheism" label of Hitchens. In [30] the commentator highlights the misuse of the word "militant" and that unless "you actually take up arms, leave the militant part for those groups who genuinely deserve it.". The [31] TED opinion uses the 'militant atheism' in quotes and associates it with a form of coming out and the [32] is a satire of the term by someone who has "come out". The opinion here [33] considers militant atheism as a "secular fanaticism", which is actually quite a good analogy, though the piece does mention that sometimes militant atheist is used to describe some but attributes the term to others. [34] is an interesting one which generally styles Hitchens as one of the "New Atheists". Good material though I don't know how notable he is. The link [35] does list Hitchens on a list but that's just an atheist rant on a blog which waxes how religion bounces back. Then [36] says Hitchens "picked up militant atheism in an attempt to remain relevant in leftist circles" - opinion ?. The Newyorker piece [37] contrasts the how the "September 11th and its aftershocks in Bali, Madrid, London, and elsewhere are more notable for causing an outbreak of militant atheism, at least on bookshelves." which pretty well sums both sides of the threat of modern militant atheism: one buries you in concrete and the other buries you in words. Finally Dinesh D’Souza [38] in which Albert Mohler opens with "...what can be described as militant atheism", and further says "new breed of militant atheists" but actually D’Souza doesn't mention "militant atheism" so this is Mohler squeezing in a sound-bite. Don't really know how worthwhile any of those were: can you give us the next tranche of Googlehits ? Ttiotsw (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In answer to "So why (without noting Christopher Hitchens is a militant atheist) is what Hitchens stating relevant?" ... That is precisely the point. Unless he is a militant atheist, what he has to say is irrelevant in this section. There is a great difference between "Hitchens is a militant atheist" and "Hitchens has been described as a militant atheist". He has indeed been described as one, but (outside the context of the Soviet Union in the early to mid 20th century) there is no such objectively identifiable thing as a militant atheist: it is just a label applied to certain atheists by certain other people, and occasionally by themselves. So Wikipedia must steer clear of saying that he is one - and therefore his comments are irrelevant, unless they are especially pertinent to the topic of the section - and I would say they add nothing in that respect. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the exact pedantic wrangling that serves no purpose other then to frustrate fellow editors. I have made no object between the wording "Hitchens is a militant atheist" and "Hitchens has been described as a militant atheist". As such you could have simply reworded the content. Instead you deleted it. This is not enough of a difference for you to engage in this type of disruptive grand standing. How does such a difference validate your deleting the content? Why could Snalwibma not have simply edited the content to say.

In the West journalist Christopher Hitchens (Hitchens has been described as a militant atheist) praised Lenin's creation of "secular Russia" and his transformation of the Russian Orthodox Church, stating "One of Lenin's great achievements, in my opinion, is to create a secular Russia. The power of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was an absolute warren of backwardness and evil and superstition, is probably never going to recover from what he did to it.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It is neither pedantic wrangling nor intended to frustrate fellow-editors (and I am getting very sick of being attacked every time I post a comment here). My interpretation is that the fact that Hitchens has been described as a militant atheist in source X has no relevance to his comments on "secular Russia" etc. in source Y, and in themselves those comments are at best of peripheral relevance to the section in question, adding nothing of value. More fundamentally, as I have tried to explain above, I think this article needs to be careful to keep two separate strands of militant atheism very separate. On the one hand we have (a) the Militant Atheists of the Soviet Union – and in this context the existence of something called Militant Atheism is an objective fact; on the other we have (b) those (generally more recent) people who have been described as "militant atheists" in various places and by various commentators – and in this case there is no objective reality about militant atheism, it's all just opinions, and sometimes even an insult. By inserting a comment from Hitchens, who is part of strand (b), into a paragraph about strand (a), the Wikipedia article appears to be suggesting that there is a close connection between the two meanings/contexts of militant atheism, and possibly even attempting to tar Hitchens and his ilk with the brush of the Soviet crimes. In my view, this is unwarranted synthesis, and it looks like an attempt to push a point of view. So it's not a matter of rewording the sentence, because I think it has no place there at all. Is that clear enough? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Enough with the No true Scotsman fallacy. Note the comment is relative as Hitchens is called, by atheists and theists alike, a militant atheist.[39],[40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48] Hitchens also is treated as a spokesperson for this position in the West.[49],[50],[51],[52],[53],[54],[55],[56],[57],[58] Which is exactly what Professor Andrew Fiala and various newspapers and the media refers to Hitchens as. That being a spokesperson for the militant atheist by the media and academia Hitchens opinions on deeds of the militant atheist is valid and noteworthy. Now as a spokesperson for that position (which can be sourced and I have sourced) what Hitchens says about what happened to the Orthodox church under a militant atheist regime is relevant. It is not my point of view that the media refers to Christopher Hitchens as a militant atheist,[59],[60],[61],[62],[63],[64],[65],[66],[67],[68]. It is not my point of view that he is called a spokesperson for militant atheism [69],[70],[71],[72],[73],[74],[75],[76],[77],[78]. it is not my point of view that he knowing is referred to as a militant atheist.[79],[80],[81],[82],[83],[84],[85],[86],[87], [88] It is not my point of view he has made comments about victims of militant atheism (the Russian Orthodox Church). It is not my point of view that those comments are directed directly at the Russian Orthodox Church.[89] This is a matter of public record. No editor here on wikipedia has such power as to suggest that they can second guess or by their own accord trump valid source information that adheres to Wikipedia policy. WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE ATTEMPTING NOW. You can be criticized and I am completely within policy to be just as critical of you and your contributions as you are to mine. Enough with Loki's wager its a fallacy as well. It does not justify non-adherence to wiki policy.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Is "militant atheism", whatever that means, the same as disestablishment and disendowment of the Church? No, it isn't. Hitchens is a former Leninist, of course, and perhaps regards him less critically than Stalin. But even taking that into account there is a clear logical, historical and political difference between the actions of the Revolutionary state in seperating church and state, and the later development of State Atheism and religious repression. Whatever we may think about Lenin's action to "seize the opportunity to confiscate church property and to dissolve, as far as possible, the influence of the church.", that quite clearly does not tell us anything about Hitchens opinion of State Atheism and religious repression. We do not have to guess what Hitchens thinks about such things, because in "God is Not Great", he explictly tells us that one cannot "excuse the killing of priests and nuns and the desecration of Churches." (p.244). Of Soviet anti-religious progaganda, he says that it was "of the most banal materialist sort: a shrine to Lenin often had stained glass while in the official museum of atheism there was testimony offered by a Russian astronaut, who had seen no god in outer space. This idiocy expressed at least as much contempt for the gullible yokels as any wonder-working icon." (p.245). He notes that "Communist absolutistts did not so much negate religion, in societies that they well understood were saturated with faith and superstition, as see to replace it." (p.246). He also attacks the Albanian "atheist state", which is says "led to even more extreme cults of mediocre human beings, such as the dictator Enver Hoxha". "There is nothing", says Hitchens, in modern secular argument that even hints at any ban on religious observance." For Hitchens, religion is "essentially ineradicable." (p.247). So actually, if we are to cite Hitchens at all it should be as an anti-militant atheist as it is presented in this article. I'll go ahead and edit the article accordingly, eh? --Dannyno (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Include it in the article. I dare say include it all. Including the part from the PBS interview. Let it be noted Hitchens says it was bad and then commends it.LoveMonkey (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Says *what* was bad? Commends *what*? Danger of synthesis here. --Dannyno (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No Post all of it. As it is an ascribed modern well known militant athiest's opinion about what militant atheism did in Russia. All of it is relative to this article.LoveMonkey (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems much more relevant to the Persecution of Christians In Soviet Union page, since the issues discussed move through much more political/contextual areas than just militant atheism, and in fact without making reference to these other areas the citation is quite inappropriate. On a general note, the tone of some contributors (pluralised for the sake of being fair and balanced) seems to be disrespectful and shrill, which is unfortunate. Ninahexan (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It should be posted to all relative topics. And when dealing with people who exhibit apathy for the 10 of millions of victims of religious oppression at the hands of beings whom professed their motive for this injustice to be the topic of this article, shill or disrespectful seems to be merciful. But fallacy as justification is against policy and the most abused on this article seems to be the Style over Substance fallacy.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been watching for a while, and I am now moved to comment. Who are these people who "exhibit apathy for the 10 of millions of victims of religious oppression"? Are you referring to your fellow-editors? I see no evidence that anyone is apathetic. What I do see is several people trying to argue that the article should be kept in proportion, and that it is not the right place for most of the material you are posting here (at excessive length). But they are constantly shouted down and insulted, and their motives are called into question in very unpleasant terms. Please, LoveMonkey, go and read the various policies. Start with WP:AGF andWP:NPA, then move on to WP:TALK and WP:SOAP. All of these core WP policies have been breached many times in this talk page, mostly (though not solely) by you. But I think the root of the whole problem here is actually betrayed by your comment that others "exhibit apathy..." This suggests that you think the purpose of the article is something to do with righting the wrongs perpetrated by various communist regimes, or to perform some sort of advocacy on behalf of the victims. It is nothing of the sort. It is an encyclopedia article about militant atheism. And those who argue against including this material are not in any way siding with the militant atheists, or disrespectful of the memories of their victims. Is it possible that they simply want to prevent an encyclopedia article being used for inappropriate advocacy? Gnusmas (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Forgive the oversight I meant empathy. And your comment shows a lack of empathy. So you would be an example. Note these pieces of data are people and historical events-facts. You are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitle to deny what a group of people did if they did it under the title of this article. And yours and other editors comments on here saying proportion and undue weight to me are not logical, if the article is about a subject that got 10s of millions of people killed. Infamy is what it is, was what happened under militant atheism in its various forms, this or not. And the desire to post a history of mass murder and civil rights violations under the given subject in proportion to its impact on reality in no way means I am one who thinks the purpose of the article is something to do with righting the wrongs perpetrated by various communist regimes, or to perform some sort of advocacy on behalf of the victims. But the attacks here on valid sources and the attacks here under the guise of policy makes near impossible for the article to reflect the history it has. But why should I care to see your perspective if you deny me mine? How can you have collaboration without this (empathy)? This poster is just wasting space and time. As I am trying to get a definitive criteria as to what can be added to the article and respond to that. I find that this article and its relative subjects have an artificially high criteria that I will again express is against the policies of fair data access and dissemination. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Then you have answered your own question when you said - "wrongs perpetrated by various communist regimes". This highlights that even you feel that the articles with the closest relation to what you feel is an injustice are the articles on the communist regimes that were in power at that time. That the regimes were also Russian doesn't mean that they get added to the Russian article or where they were uniquely Romanian then they get added to the article on Romanians (and the communism of the Soviets was uniquely Russian, as is the communism of the Romanians and the Chinese). Ttiotsw (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea what you mean. Gnusmas (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about whether we should say anything about Christopher Hitchens' attitude to "militant atheism" as understood by this article (we all know my opinion of this article). LoveMonkey appears to think that Hitchens was in favour of "militant atheism" as understood by this article, but I quoted him opposing it. So how do we get Christopher Hitchens' attack on militant atheism into the article? --Dannyno (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The Hitchens thing would take up too much space here if it were expressed properly, and to appreciate it fully perhaps requires a greater understanding of history than this page permits. To expand this page to accommodate this perspective seems like a waste of time, it would better suit another page that actually gave some insight into the context surrounding the use of militant atheism (soviet). This view will possibly be argued against by people who believe that militant atheism was a goal rather than a tool, however. Ninahexan (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Torture committed in order to treat the "mental illness" of theism by atheistic regimes

In Romania torture was used on theist prisoners as a means to making them give up their belief in God. Not to make them adhere to communism but to adhere to atheism. These militant atheists and their tactics caused an international stir which then under international pressure made their own respective governments relent on the torture of their prisoners and "punished" some of the atheists involved. This happened not in Russia under Stalin this happened in Romania in the Pitesti prison (see Sorin_Ilie). One victim of this re-education and mental health treatment was Gheorghe Calciu-Dumitreasa who with the help of Ronald Reagan was able to be freed from the prison and receive asylum in the United States. There should be a section in the article about what happened in Romania. As this shows as yet another example that if what the atheists did they did for communism they would have settled on people simply embracing communism and the state. . But no instead they insisted that their victims embrace and become atheists. They tortured and punished those whom did not embrace atheism, even if those same people embraced communism and the state.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Stages of "reeducation"

• The process begun after thatdate involved psychological punishment (mainly through humiliation)and physical torture.

• Detainees, who were subject to regular and severe beatings, were also required to engage in torturing each other, with the goal of discouraging past loyalties. Guards would force them to attend scheduled or ad-hocpolitical instruction sessions, on topics such as dialectical materialism and Joseph Stalin's History of the CPSU(B) Short Course, usually accompanied by random violence and encouraged delation (demascare,lit. "unmasking") for various real or invented misdemeanors.

• Each victim of the experiment was initially subject to regular interrogation, during which torture was applied as a means to expose intimate details of his life("external unmasking"). Hence, they were required to reveal everything they were thought to have hidden from previous interrogations; hoping to escape torture, many prisoners would confess imaginary misdeeds. The second phase,"internal unmasking", required the tortured to reveal the names of those who had behaved less brutal or somewhat indulgently towards themin detention.

• Public humiliation was also enforced, usually at the third stage ("public moral unmasking"),inmates were forced to denounce all their personal beliefs, loyalties, and values. Notably, religious inmates were dressed as figures of Christ, and all others were required to address them insults; they had to blaspheme religious symbols and sacred texts.

• The inmates were required to accept the notion that their own family members had various criminal and grotesque features;they were required to author false autobiographies, comprising accounts of deviant behavior.According to Dumitru Bacu: "By injecting gradually into the victim'ssubconscious information different from what he had always acceptedas real and true, by altering and constantly deprecating existing reality and substituting for it a fictitious image, the re-educator at last achieved the final purpose of the unmasking: to make the lie so real to the victim that he would forget what had formerly for him made sense." This led to a "complete reversal, for an indeterminate time, of the values in which the student had always believed".

• In addition to physical violence, inmates subject to "reeducation" were supposed to work for exhausting periods in humiliating jobs (for example, cleaning the floor with a rag clenched between the teeth).Malnourished and kept in degrading and unsanitary conditions, inmates were prevented from engaging in contacts with the outside world, and forced to cover their eyes in the few instances where they could walkout of their cells.

• It has been argued that techniques used by the ODCC were ultimately derived from Anton Makarenko's controversial pedagogy and penology principles in respect to rehabilitation. On at least one occasion, Makarenko was allegedly cited as inspiration by Ţurcanu himself. the prison also ensured a preliminary selection for the labor camps atthe Danube-Black Sea Canal, Ocnele Mari, and other sites, where squads of former inmates were supposed to extend the experiment.<refname="Cioroianu, p.317; Măgirescu"/>

• The Pitesti phenomenon (1949-1952) Between 1949 and 1951, the destruction of society’s elite was almost complete: intellectuals, diplomats, priests, officers, magistrates, policemen, and politicians of the “bourgeois-landowner regime” were in prison; the most industrious peasants had been deported to forced labour camps. Collectively and individually, they were all labelled “enemies of the people”. It now remained to annihilate the unpredictable social force of youth. For the latter, the Pitesti experiment was invented (termed “re-education” by the Securitate). The most barbarous methods of psychological torture were applied to “recalcitrant” young prisoners, with the object of making them reciprocally humiliate each other, physically abuse each other and mentally torture each other. Victims were transformed into executioners; prisoners were tortured by their own friends, by their fellows in suffering. The purpose: “re-education” through physical and psychical destruction, the transformation of young people into atheists, into informers on their friends. [90], [91]

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You provide many repeats to the same reference (Cioroianu, p.317; Măgirescu). The text says "Victims were transformed into executioners; prisoners were tortured by their own friends, by their fellows in suffering." and suggests that the goal was to turn them into "atheists" but it doesn't actually highlight that who was doing all of this was "militant atheist". It doesn't actually mention the word "militant" and only uses "atheist" as a goal rather than as the nature of the perpetrators. In fact this references says "communist regime sought to uproot religious belief and impose atheism." (my bold). It doesn't say "militant atheists" sought. So communist regimes are a pretty poor stupid way of running a country - so tell us something we don't know !. Fascist regimes are equally crap and they are usually theistic. The Piteşti prison article also doesn't mention the word "atheist" at all and actually says that "brainwashing experiment carried out by Communist authorities" and that it was to re-educate "banned groupings such as the National Peasants' and National Liberal parties, as well as those who claimed inspiration from the fascist Iron Guard or Zionist members of the Romanian Jewish community" and so on. Nowadays we would recognise the behaviours from the Stanford prison experiment and the Milgram experiment. The honest fact is that those committing these crimes were in fact "human beings" and as experiments have shown then it is neither theism nor atheism that is the source of this but an intrinsic nature of humanity which can be bent and this is what any suitable autocrats exploit. By any chance could you stop spamming links that have no relevance ? Ttiotsw (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

According to this book "Militant atheism remained to the end a characteristic mark of Romanian communism", the following book explicitly claims that they wanted to educate people "in the spirit of militant atheism", this one also claims that "applying the theories of Marxist atheism, Pavlovian reflexology, and Freudian psychoanalysis, the architects of re-education aimed to eliminate religion, particularly Christianity, and traditional Romanian culture", you can also find here some other informations about the anti-Christian acts done at the Pitesti prison. So, I think it is obvious enough that "militant atheism" was an important characteristic of the marxist regimes. Cody7777777 (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The word "militant atheist" is used once in the 235 page book, Values and education in Romania today, by Marin C. Călin, Magdalena Dumitrana, and it is in double-quotes so it comes from another reference i.e. they are quoting another source and "Atheism/Atheist" doesn't appear in the Index so as a concept it is rather mentioned in passing and is minor. That reference says that "communist propaganda had a categorical task..." and so this suggests that we add this reference to an article on "communist propaganda" or add it to the communism articles. "Militant" is used once in the 285 page book, History and myth in Romanian consciousness By Lucian Boia (with atheist being used once and and atheism being used twice) whereas "communism" is used 75 times and "nationalism" is used 42 times. The 325 page book Petre Ţuţea: between sacrifice and suicide By Alexandru Daniel Popescu the word "militant atheism" is used once and is in the authors description of Ţuţea sense of a "universal conflict between religious faith and militant atheism". So for that we could say that Ţuţea has a sense of a "...." but not much else can be made out of that. This is pretty weak to stick in here. Your reference for that book is actually talking about Marxist atheism - stick it into the article on Marxism. Your last link to [92] doesn't mention the word "militant atheism/t" but is a "see here an almost unbelievable dedication by communists" and its focus is the "infinitely more repressive communist war on religion". Overall these highlight that it is communism and in places nationalism that is the subject of the articles and that they are dumb ways of running a country, so tell us something we don't know and stick it into those articles. When a search finds 1 hit in a couple of hundred page book then isn't this pretty plain that the topic isn't the central theme of that book but a very minor aspect ?. Can people please provide references that actually discuss the subject of this article rather than quote-mining a book for the 1 time it hits. Ttiotsw (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for checking those sources. The last link above, about the Pitesti prison, indeed doesn't use the exact terms "militant atheism" on that page, however on the first page of that article, it explicitly claims that "Communists were proud of their atheism, and militant about it", and the article describes (and focuses on the) acts of "militant atheism" done in these prisons (and the article includes citations from a book about that, regrettably there is no preview avaible), so as far as I see, its main focus is the subject of this article. But, even if the main focus of the other sources mentioned above is not about "militant atheism" (and regardless how often they use the exact terms "militant atheism"), since they clearly mention about this (and they claim that the marxist regimes were "militant atheist", and attempted to educate people in this way), it means they offer some information about this topic and they can be used as references for an article which discusses about "militant atheism" (and I haven't actually seen any source which disputes the claim that these regimes were "militant atheist", and this means that this is not some sort of a fringe theory and there is no problem with WP:UNDUE, especially since I haven't argued to add this information in the article's lead section). We can indeed also include these informations about the "militant atheism" of the marxist-leninist regimes in articles about "marxism" and "communism", but that doesn't mean we cannot also include them in an article about "militant atheism". Cody7777777 (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Militant atheism is an outcome of the Communism i.e. what comes first is the communism (or rather the dialectic materialism) and then as a side effect we have atheism and other stuff, but the torture is not an outcome of the militant atheism and it is undue weight to present the topic in that way. As I mentioned in one of the book you referenced the "Militant" is used once in the 285 page book, History and myth in Romanian consciousness By Lucian Boia and the word atheist being used once and and atheism being used twice whereas "communism" is used 75 times and "nationalism" is used 42 times and this sets a pattern: doing a rough search through the 1998 edition of this book the tag cloud shows the relevant terms - militant obviously doesn't appear and atheist/m doesn't show with atheistic just getting some exposure so ignoring that it is a partisan source, it too doesn't focus on the subject of this article. So no we cannot include whatever these books contain as they have barely anything to do with the subject of this article. These marginal references make as much sense as my finding one reference to Linux (the OS) in a book about Windows (OS) and then using that as an excuse to slap whatever polemic is in the Windows OS book into the Linux article. There must be books that focus on actual "militant atheism" but I think most authors actually realise that the enemy is communism and totalitarianism and whatever-ism and that is why you are finding it difficult to find a book that has more than 1 or two words (and it is literally that the words in whatever order are used just once in books that number in the 10s or even 100s of thousands of words). This is very much undue weight. So no, as I have stated to LoveMonkey before they canvassed you, in new sections please indicate the exact text that you want added to the article and the exact references that support this text. I think it is reasonable that the terms are at least used more than once or at least are used as the subject of the book rather than a one-liner in passing. The whole article of "Militant atheism" is here because we have explicit mention of its use WRT certain people but it is undue to then try and mis-characterise those because of the "administrative atheism" of totalitarianism. You'll recognise the term "administrative atheism" from The Final Revolution: The Resistance Church and the Collapse of Communism By George Weigel on page 120 and I suspect that is why you'll have the difficulty because people are "militant" but we don't usually call an oppressor militant. We call them despotic. The failure of mainstream religions to accommodate those in which atheism is an intellectual conviction means that when there is an administrative desire to atheism, the religion has already declared the state as the enemy. So in conclusion where the term is used about a person or group of people then there is no problems with inclusion here but where a reference lists the outcome of a political doctrine that happens to have "administrative atheism" as just one characteristic of its rule then it had to be pretty clear that the reference believes that this is all due to "militant atheism" and not just communism or nationalism or some other *ism. A book of a few hundred pages with just one use of the term isn't really acceptable. Ttiotsw (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

To argue that militant atheism was the outcome of Communism, rather than something that goes hand in hand with Communism, you would have to show when Marxist Communism existed apart from Militant Atheism. Aside from simply pulling this assertion out of thin air or your fertile imagination, upon what do you base it? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No I don't have to as that is a waste of my time. I'm not the one wanting to add the unsubstantiated material into this article. I have shown that the references offered to date barely mention the subject of this article and that is all we need to do. It's dross to this article and better placed in some other article. On the specific matter you raise then the old adage of correlation does not imply causation applies. It appears that life is more complex than the narrow imagination of some of whom Richard Dawkins considers to be rather deluded (though I think in some cases it is more profit than prophet). Not only do we have Catholics who are Communists we also have militant atheists who are not socialists. We have militant atheists who are socialists and we have Catholics who are not communists. Just about covers all bases. Ttiotsw (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Frjohnwhiteford: By that argument, you could with equal validity say that the destruction of the churches etc. was caused by collective farming. Sorry, but unless a source clearly identifies "militant atheism" as a cause, we cannot ascribe the effect to it. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 13:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

People according to you are just being mean and outraged and being vengeful because they got their civil rights violated and their neighbors and loved ones murdered. They are just misinformed about the things that happened. Since I have already posted plenty of sourcing stating over and over again what you say none claims. Here another.

" The Soviet government stood on a platform of militant atheism, viewing the church as a "counterrevolutionary" organization and an independent voice with a great influence in society. Thousands of churches and monasteries were taken over by the government and either destroyed or used as warehouses, recreation centers, "museums of atheism", or even GULAGs. The government youth organization, the Komsomol, encouraged its members to vandalize Orthodox Churches and harrassed worshipers. In 1927 Metropolitan Sergius, who took over the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church after Patriarch Tikhon's death, decided to accept the new government as legitimate, leading to a split with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.Read more: Russian Orthodox Church - History, Post-Soviet recovery, Structure and organization, Doctrine and practices, Russian Orthodox churches Cambridge Encyclopedia Vol. 65 At the very least this is hardly a misconception. This has been pointed out to you again and again and again and again and yet you deny and persist. As this shows as yet another example that if what the atheists did they did for communism they would have settled making the ex-churches museums of communism and the state. But no instead they insisted that the churches and monasteries be made museums of atheism. They tortured and punished those whom did not embrace atheism, even if those same people embraced communism and the state.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed, the Soviet Union "stood on a platform of militant atheism", among other things. But that does not mean that everything the Soviet government did belongs here, any more than it all belongs in the article on collective farming, or in the various other artilces about the things the Soviets espoused. There are much better places for all that material. It's a matter of keeping the article in proportion. But please stop assigning motives to others, and putting words into their mouths. I have never said anything about people being "mean and outraged and ... vengeful" or "misinformed". SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide references that don't blow up in our faces in the first few minutes of checking them ?. Check this out - the "Cambridge Encyclopaedia" has no clear copyright or attribution statement so I selected the text just above the bit you have highlighted which says, "many leaders of the Church supported what would ultimately turn out to be the losing side (the White movement)." and I Googled for that. I find that the Wikipedia article Russian_Orthodox_Church has the same text including the (). So either the "Cambridge Encyclopaedia" has violated the copyright of Wikipedia by failing to attribute the source or our own Wikipedia article has WP:COPYVIO of the "Cambridge Encyclopaedia". FWIW the text was added here on the 25th December 2005 by Special:Contributions/Nikodemos. Now looking at that diff my guess is that our (retired by the looks of it) editor is the source as it is a fairly complex WP:COPYEDIT rather than a single inserted text block and I say that the Cambridge Encyclopedia has copied the content from Wikipedia but it could be around the other way. My gut feeling is that site is in violation of Wikipedia copyrights. I'll seek further advice because AFAIK they haven't satisfied Wikipedia:Copyright#Reusers.27_rights_and_obligations. Ttiotsw (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

WRONG! and again more lying and disruptive behavior [93] Could you assume good faith I as did not create the webpage, link, article and if it is a copyright violation I have not way or authority to address it. I also doubt that your face has been hurt so your hyperbole is hypocritical to your hypercritical posturing. As it took me all of about 30 seconds to find the Cambridge website and the article in question from the information provided. If Cambridge can't keep their webpage up how am I responsible. You can't see the link I provide is LITERALLY Cambridge. I can not help you. You continually rail about sourcing and now this is your way of denying CAMBRIDGE AS A VALID SOURCE. Your behavior is completely unethical and your assumptions unfounded and you no business to do what you've just did. Lets see if you apologize for your mistake claiming you can't find the it without it blowing up in your face and that somehow the article, link are invalid.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but your source looks to be a copy of Wikipedia and so, per Wikipedia:FORK, it is not a WP:RS and never will be. Digging further I see that the so-called "Cambridge Encyclopaedia" has "Portions of the summary below have been contributed by Wikipedia.". I say that the text further in (and not just the Summary) is also copied. Ttiotsw (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It may be true that these persecutions were done by the marxist-leninist-stalinist governments (and not just by some simple non-marxist "militant atheists"), but as already said before, these governments were also "militant atheist" (this seems obvious enough just from the titles of the following books[94][95][96], and even a simple google book search can bring many results proving this), they promoted "militant atheism" (it was one of the main concepts in which they believed), and they aimed to impose it on others through persecutions (and if they wouldn't had been "militant atheist", they wouldn't have wanted to impose it on others). I think it is clear enough that these marxist-leninists were also "militant atheists" (and since they were, they can also be mentioned here, since this article is not only about non-marxist militant atheism), and in my opinion, it is common sense to include more details about their acts of "militant atheism" in an article called "miliant atheism", in fact I have to say, that I am quite surprised that this article does not include more information about "soviet miliant atheism", (and including this doesn't mean that non-marxist militant atheists are somehow responsible for the acts done by marxist-leninist miliant atheists). And there was not just a single book (with a single reference to the exact terms "militant atheist") provided about the "marxist-leninist militant atheism" in Romania, there are more books([97][98][99]). I think, the article provided earlier([100][101]), justifies a mention in the examples' section about the attempts made by the "marxist-leninist militant atheist" regime in Romania to impose atheism through forced re-education (the article clearly states that "communists were proud of their atheism, and militant about it" and describes acts which are "militant atheist" also according to the definition of militant atheism already provided in the article, respectively "atheism which is actively hostile to religion"). Cody7777777 (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A problem is that this section in the talk was about the Pitesti prison and it has drifted to other topics. The new references are interesting in how they use the term and so allow us to date the term positively to use in the mid-1930s, though without actually being able to read the books/pamphlets, plus the source being such a marginal partisan source (of the Catholic Truth Society Of Ireland), there isn't much else we can do with them. That there are other hits e.g. [102] highlights that "Militant atheism would not appear to be essential to Marxism" and then highlights that Marxism and Christianity are diametrically opposed on the basis of materialism (a point this encyclical Spe Salvi highlights. It is common sense that it is Communism and Nationalism that is where the weight of content should lie - even the references use those words to a far greater weight. The "Romanian Cassandra: Ion Antonescu and the struggle for reform, 1916-1941 By Larry Watts" uses the word "atheism" once out of a book of 390 pages and if you look at the tag cloud then there is a lot more political content. The "The political economy of Romanian socialism By William E. Crowther" also has 1 use of the word in 205 pages and has a very similar looking tagcloud discussing the more complex politics of the region and times. The book "Values and education in Romania today edited by Marin C. Călin, Magdalena Dumitrana" I think we've referred to previously and the footnote points to page 47 in which the text comes from. The text refers to the Communist propaganda ...educate them...spirit of Militant Atheism. Without reading the original text (Problems of the Dialectical Materialist Conception of the World and Society, of Atheistic and Scientific education) (1980) (Bucharest: Sectia de propagand a Comitetilui Central al Partidului Comunist Roman [The Propaganda Department of the Central Committee of the Romanian Comunist Party]), p. 78) we don't know how that has been paraphrased. What exactly do you want to add here and how is it related to the Pitesti prison ?. Ttiotsw (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The book you cited also claims that "Marxism had to be militant in its opposition to religion in Russia during the Bolshevik revolution", and as far as I see, many of the other results of that search also describe the "militant atheist" character of soviet marxism, and while there may be indeed some debates regarding the miliant atheist character of present-day marxism (and perhaps even about initial marxism), I doubt that the militant atheist character of "marxism-leninism" (or of the "leninist" and "stalinist" regimes) is disputed. Regarding the books provied earliler about the Romanian marxist-leninist regime, even if their main focus may not be about "militant atheism", that doesn't change the fact that they have explicitly described that regime as "militant atheist" (and regardless how often they use that exact term, they still clearly claim that it was this way, and I think this is enough, especially since they are not just a single book, and unless there are other sources disputing that, there cannot be any claim that this is some sort of a fringe theory). And regarding this book, I don't think it really matters how the citation used there is in the original text (and probably it wasn't even written in English, and it is not really necessary to check "primary sources"), the fact is that this book is a "secondary source" which claims nonetheless that the marxist-leninists in Romania, attempted educate people in the "spirit of militant atheism" (the book however, indeed does not refer to the Pitesti prison), something similar is also claimed here, as far as I see, their aim to "eliminate religion" clearly refers to a "militant atheist" act (also according to the definitions of this term, given in the article). Regarding, the Pitesti prison, there was already mentioned earlier an article([103][104]), which describes attempts to impose atheism on religious people done by "communists who were proud of their atheism, and militant about it". Cody7777777 (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, with the reference from "Sheed and Ward anthology of Catholic philosophy De James Swindal,Harry J. Gensler" here it says "Some may argue that Marxism had to be militant...". (my bold) "Some may argue" adds little to the text as it doesn't highlight who these "some" are and the reference's real claim is their conclusion that "Militant atheism would not appear to be essential to Marxism.", so it does not follow then that what you said with "I doubt that the militant atheist character of "marxism-leninism" (or of the "leninist" and "stalinist" regimes) is disputed." because here we have a reference that you provided that says that it's not essential to Marxism. As for the actual Leninism or Stalinist regimes then those are implementations of a political doctrine and we already have it covered here that they were also militant atheist. The Pitesti prison is very much about different Romanian political factions (the nationalist Iron Guard /legionnaires verses, well just about anyone else) bashing each other. There is no way that the Pitesti prison is in any way related to this article. From the 1866 constitution onwards Romania is a mess of politics - about the only common theme being anti-Semitism. The anti-Semitic National Christian Party from the handing of power to Ion Antonescu, through to the coup which was too late and power was handed to the Soviets. The relationship between militant atheism and Pitesti prison is tenuous in the extreme and would be very much undue weight to add it here without very precise references that use the terms. So I will check every source and highlight exactly where I see that it fails especially given I've been accused of lying in my replies. Ttiotsw (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That book seems to talk more about present-day marxism ("Few Marxists today would subscribe to the need for a ruthless, militant atheism.", this could even suggest that in the past they have done this), and it still doesn't say that "Militant Atheism was not essential to Marxism-Leninism" (the Soviet version of Marxism), and I haven't seen yet a book to claim this, that book claims that "Militant atheism would not appear to be essential to Marxism.", this is actually a statement in a "conditional mood" (not a clear statement, since it writes "would not appear" not "did not appear", and it talks about "marxism", not "marxism-leninism"). Other books, speak more explicitly about how the militant atheism of marxism-leninism affected religious orangizations and religious people, "As militant atheists, the Communists were more ruthless in pruning the power of the church", "the administrative elimination of the clergy, atheist museums housed where churches had once stood, and a continuous stream of hate-propaganda designed to terrorise the faithful into submission...was in line with Lenin's policy of militant atheism, as was the emphasis on education as means of eliminating religious beliefs", "...a doctrine called Marxism-Leninism, and one fundamental element of that doctrine was militant atheism", Lenin "declared that the Bolsheviks must be committed to "militant atheism," expressed through "untiring atheist propaganda and an untiring atheistic fight", "Communists profess a militant atheism and they are compelled to carry on anti-religious propaganda", "Lenin demanded that Communist propaganda stress "militancy and irreconcilability towards all forms of idealism and religion. And that means that materialism organically reaches that consequence and perfection which in the language of philosophy is called — militant atheism."", "Communism, as a secular religion, is equipped with a militant atheist philosophy that enables it to attack the traditional beliefs", Marxism-Leninism "was surely the most massive and the most powerful assault on traditional religious faith that was ever launched in the history of mankind.", "militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religion as the dangerous opium and narcotic of the people...thus force may be necessary to control or eliminate religion", Lenin "opted for a harsh and "unscientific" militant atheism, appropriate as tactic perhaps but prolonged and intensified both by Communists and by the reaction of the Church", "the horror of Communist militant atheism with its destruction of churches and killing of priests was most deeply felt by the orthodox Christian Romanian population.", "Communism is militant atheism", an article called "Orthodox Christianity and Militant Atheism in the Twentieth Century" also claims that "Soviet Communism was committed by its fundamental principles to an aggressive and militant atheism...A Soviet teacher must be guided by the principle of the Party spirit of science; he is obliged not only to be an unbeliever himself, but also to be an active propagandist of godlessness among others, to be the bearer of the ideas of militant proletarian atheism...Not only were churches closed on a massive scale in the 1920s and 1930s, but huge numbers of bishops and clergy, monks, nuns and laity were sent to prison and to concentration camps.", "the (communist) party adopted a policy of militant atheism, and started to uproot organized religion in Russia...Priests were impoverished by the ending of state subsidies and the confiscation of church property. Religious buildings were converted for a variety of different uses (including museums of atheism). Religious education was outlawed, being replaced with atheistic propaganda.", I think that these sources clearly prove that "militant atheism" was an essential component of "marxism-leninism" and justify some more additions in the article, about marxist-leninist militant atheist attemps to impose atheism on religious people, and forcefully educate them this way. Regarding, the Pitesti prison, it is related to this article, because it was one of the prisons were "communists who were proud of their atheism, and militant about it" wanted to re-educate people also as atheists, there was already an article provided above that gives more details about this, and as far as I see, the claim that there were no acts of "militant atheism" done at that prison is currently unsourced. Also, I'm not sure where I accused you of lying, but I'm sorry if I have indeed unfairly accused you of lying. Cody7777777 (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

With Marxist-Leninism under the Soviets it is pretty well agreed that it was Militant Atheist. It's also pretty well agreed that Barack Obama is an African-American. So in the African-American article we may be able to mention Barack Obama in passing (on the significance of being the first African American president) but we would not be able to add in that article details of his position on say Medical insurance reform. Equally, we can say that Militant Atheism is a characteristic of Marxist-Leninism under the Soviets but as adding in things which the Communists did (i.e. what Obama does with medical insurance) is outside of the scope of this article (just as it would be to add that to the African-American article). In the end correlation does not imply causation. The problem I have with the book, "Romanian Cassandra: Ion Antonescu and the struggle for reform, 1916-1941 By Larry Watts" is the timeline makes no sense. The Romanian Communists didn't really get into power until after 1941 (the end of the timeline of that book). We'd really need to read more especially given that the Romanian Orthodox Church actually got given at least 2600 churches in 1948 that the Communists took from other religious groups (Greco-Catholics, Jews and whoever else seemed to get in their way) and given that the Romanian Orthodox Church has retained these churches and all the staff of the church are in fact paid for by the Communist State and even today are paid for by the State then they seem to have in fact profited quite well from this "militant atheism". That the reference mentions Iaşi perhaps this is some kind of snowjob for the pogroms ?. With the Pitesti prison then same problem with correlation does not imply causation. The people doing this were also Romanian. Ttiotsw (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

We can point to many black Americans who are not Barack Obama. How many Militant Atheist governments can you cite where the rights of religious people were respected, Churches were not destroyed or stolen, and people who not tortured, shot, starved, or otherwise butchered? Please list as many examples as you can. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No you have that fallacy wrong - I can point to the many militant atheists who are not governments. In fact we list a few in this article. On the subject of buildings, why are so many religious people so wedded to material goods ?. Even the last Pope encyclical Spe Salvi highlights that real threat is materialism and not atheism and in fact justifies the atheism as "The atheism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is—in its origins and aims—a type of moralism: a protest against the injustices of the world and of world history" (ibid para 42). But then he's *another* who is tax-payer funded and rather wedded to his material goods so it's hard to consider him anything other than a biased source of polemic. That said he's talking about the Militant Atheism of this era (post French Republic through to Communism and the opposition that this was to the monarchies and establish churches) but he avoids the "militant" word. I think some sources have seen Spe Salvi as a criticism of atheism (so hopefully they have mentioned "militant"). Ttiotsw (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that we only know what Militant Atheist will do when they have power, when they in fact have power. Please cite the examples of tolerant Militant Atheist who have had the power. Make the list as long as you can. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

We're defining militant atheism even in this article as "Atheism which is actively hostile to religion" or words like that; hopefully you'll see that it's not possible to satisfy the contradiction you present so I assume this is just idle chatter. Use any class of 'X' and then demand examples that would make 'X' a not-'X'. That's dumb. So the real problem is that you are wasting out time with your WP:SOAPBOXing.Ttiotsw (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me make it easy for you then. Please list all the examples of Atheist Governments (militant or otherwise) in which believers or anyone else who got in their way were not routinely taken out and butchered. Please make the list as exhaustive as you can. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the Cathars and the Waldensians were "routinely taken out and butchered" and to some degree also the Huguenots so I guess that makes whoever attacked them an "Atheist Government" ? Come on Wikipedia is not a pulpit and I am not your personal librarian.Ttiotsw (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Do I need to lay out the logic of your argument here? There are no examples of Atheist running a country without butchering believers. There are plenty of examples of Christian countries in which non-Christians were not routinely butchered as a matter of state policy. That is why examples of the times when atheists have actually been in power are relevant to this article. The fact that you cannot cite any more positive examples of Atheist governments is due simply to the fact that there are none. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The opposite of Christian is non-Christian. The opposite of Christian isn't atheism nor is it Communism nor materialism. Atheist is to not have a belief in any god or gods and says nothing about the colour of your skin, your sexual orientation nor what would be the basis of running a country. At a country level you seem to be comparing "Communist" with some "Dictatorships", "Republics" or "Monarchies" or "Democracies". Actions of a state are the responsibility of and relevant to the state and so this is why what countries do when they are in power is irrelevant to this article. Equally the actions of the many atheists, agnostics and non-theists go into their own respective articles and not here. Ttiotsw (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong. Atheism is not the absence of a belief in God. Atheism is the affirmation that you know that there is no God. An agnostic simply does not have a belief in God. An Atheist claims a knowledge he cannot possibly have on an empirical level, and usually he is ready to force others to conform to his belief. And without question, whenever you have had atheists running a country, they have been violent thugs, and butchered people in mass. There are no contrary examples, dodge, deny, or kick up dust to distract all you like. Thus the term "Militant Atheist" And that is why you cannot reasonably claim the examples of the only cases in which Atheist have actually been in power have no relevance, try as you might. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent for readability)Your narrow definitions of the spectrum of those that do not believe in gods of whatever flavor isn't going to help support the inclusion of what you are suggesting in this article, unless the references explicitly state that the cause was militant atheism or by militant atheists. Where the weight in the reference is significantly against militant atheism e.g. by no, single or infrequent use of the term, then it can't seriously be added here. Some examples to date have had no use of the term whilst other references use better terms, such as "communism" or "nationalism", many more times. If you stated clearly in a new section what you want added and the supporting references rather than in this thread then we could proceed. Ttiotsw (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"An Atheist claims a knowledge he cannot possibly have on an empirical level, and usually he is ready to force others to conform to his belief." The first part of this claim is false unless you have a very restrictive definition of "knowledge" that makes it almost impossible to know anything. The second part is obvious nonsense. Forcing others to conform to their beliefs has historically been a feature of many religions, monotheistic religions being the worst offenders in this respect. See Inquisition for some relevant information. Trying to treat paranoid conditions such as religion by force is of course nonsense. Hans Adler 07:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is probably off-topic, but to be honest, from an orthodox point of view, I think it could even be said that the inquisition (and also the crusaders) were atheists (or at least, non-christians) who claimed that they were christians ([105][106] "The Grand Inquisitor is an atheist"). I'm sorry, if someone feels offended by this statement, but I was just describing a different point of view, I'm not debating here who is right or wrong. On-topic, militant atheist governments were indeed responsible for a large number of victims (please note, that I'm not referring just to some atheist members of various governments, but to governments which have officially adopted "militant atheism" as one of their ideologies), "...militant atheism has slaughtered more people than religious zealots ever have. The greatest mass murders in history have been committed not by Christians but by Communists Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung. More than 100 million have died at the hands of these militant atheists since the early 20th century". Cody7777777 (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand the word "empirical" -- see empiricism. How can an atheist empirically know that there is no God? Only God could have such empirical knowledge, and of course, He would know that the Atheist was wrong. An atheist can say he has no empirical proof that there is a God, but that does not prove that there is no God, only that he has no empirical proof that proves there is one. That's a big difference. I am not a Roman Catholic, but let's compare the body counts of the Roman Catholic Church with militant Atheists. I think the Militant Atheist have them beat by more than 100 to 1, and that is if you count one century of militant atheism compared with 10 centuries of the independent existence of the Roman Church.Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Red Herring -Fallacy- Two wrongs make a right, The Orthodox Church had nothing to do with the inquisition the Orthodox church was a victim of the crusades. There is no evidence of the Orthodox Churches being a direct cause of anything you are saying. The militant atheists as an organ of the government in Russia killed and repressed people. We have provided examples. The league of militant atheists had no basis to bother with anyone except people that were not atheists. This article is about the title, name of that group which expresses the groups' motive. Fallacy is fallacy. Correct your own position and stop using them. If your position is one based on evidence then stop using fallacies start posting evidence. No one deserves what happened no matter how some one might try to justify it. Trying to justify the behavior of people, whom committed evil through paranoid conditions such as sociopathic mental illness, by reasoning is of course nonsense.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"There are no examples of Atheist running a country without butchering believers." There are plenty of examples. Lots of governments or government leaders in legally elected both in Europe and in other places has been atheists without resorting to "butchering believers". You should perhaps be more wary of using such blanket statements Frjohnwhiteford, they have no place in Wikipedia and might end up distorting the NPOV of articles. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

An atheist who participates in a government that has a constitution that is not based in atheism is not the same as an atheist government running a country. There are and have been explicitly Christian governments in which tolerance for non-Christians has been the norm. England is an officially Christian country, as is Italy, Greece, and many other European Countries. There are no officially Atheist countries in which tolerance has ever been noted. That's just a fact, you can refuse to deal with it all you wish. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

So it was not "Atheists running the country", but some Atheists under special circumstances of your own definition. And that definition just happens to result in only Communist dictatorships passing your strict definitions. As it is clear that "all atheists" does not equal "communists" your conclusion is obviously not very descriptive or useful, and as they seem to be homemade hardly fit for Wikipedia either.--Saddhiyama (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

An individual atheist who serves in a government in which he is limited by a lot of non-atheists, and functions under a constitution that is not atheistic, does not have the ability to impose his beliefs on others, butcher them, or be otherwise intolerant. If you can explain to me the flaw in what I just said, feel free... but it is a fact. Our Constitution is not atheistic, but it specifically forbids the establishment of a state religion, and so even if some person with secret sympathies toward the spanish inquisition were to be elected president, they would not have the power to impose an inquisition on the United States either. The French Revolution was not a communist revolution, but you do have atheists running the show, and you have the same kind of intolerance and butchery as you did under the communists. The fact that you have no examples of Atheistic governments exercising tolerance towards religious people is not due to some unfairness in my challenge... it is simply due to the obvious fact that there are not now nor have there ever been such examples. And so this article should talk about the actual examples we find in history, not the fantasies that you or anyone else might wish to imagine. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of stolen churches - I hope to expand an article on the Romanian Orthodox Church receiving churches confiscated from other religious and they do seem loathe to return them (which then makes it a theft). Any help would be gratefully appreciated. Ttiotsw (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The persecution of the uniates were clearly other crimes done by the stalinist regime in Romania (it was not the Romanian Orthodox Church who started persecuting them), but the fact that the Uniate churches were given to the Romanian Orthodox Church doesn't change the fact that other Romanian Orthodox churches were destroyed (and the fact that at "re-education" prisons, religious people were forced to also become atheists), and even if the Romanian Orthodox Church wouldn't have taken these churches, the state would've probably found other uses for them. (I would also add, that these uniates appeared in Transylvania, through the forced conversion of the orthodox population there by the habsburgs, but of course, this doesn't excuse in any way the persecution of the uniates.) And, as far as I know, the uniates have actually recovered a considerable number of these churches, even in places were there were just a few uniates living, but other of their former churches are indeed still used by the orthodox. (And, although this could be off-topic, these churches are not just some "material goods" in the private property of some individuals, from a different point of view, they belong to God and to the people who pray there.) Cody7777777 (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any references to support your claim that "uniates have actually recovered a considerable number of these churches" because from what I understand from my reference Law and religion in post-communist Europe By Silvio Ferrari, W. Cole Durham, Elizabeth A. Sewell page 252 the Romanian Orthodox Church has obstructed these other churches from getting access and use of what was originally the other religions' church e.g. the various Hungarian Churches have asked for around 1400 churches to be returned but as of year 2000 only 10 had been returned. Perhaps there *is* a considerable number but I'm pretty confident it isn't though it is 10 years since those figures. One would have thought that if these "belong to God " then whatever god that is would pick up the bills rather than leaving it to the Romanian taxpayer: we certainly need a better understanding in the articles in Wikipedia of the funding models for churches. Ttiotsw (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The following article from the Romanian wikipedia includes more information about the restitution of some other churches to the uniates after the year 2000, howerver the article and most of the sources it uses are in Romanian. I do not know the exact numbers of churches they have recovered until now, but the larger part of them are indeed still used by the Romanian Orthodox Church. However, the main problem about the uniates, is that they no longer have too many members (after the state outlawed the Uniate Church, many of their former members, who also used these churches, have converted to orthodoxy), and in many places the uniates are in minority today, and if the churches there would be given to them, then the majority of the orthodox living there would be left without churches (and then, a few uniates would have a church larger than they have members). (And regarding taxes, God does not need to pick up these bills, since it was people who invented these bills, and actually there isn't any official Church tax made on the believers by the Romanian Orthodox Church, but as far as I know, the state offers financial support to the Churches, depending on the number of their members). Cody7777777 (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

(←) There has not been any rounding up of atheists and putting them in the gulag because they were atheists? Let alone millions of atheist. There is no religious organ that has destroyed their meeting places, taken their meeting places from them, took them out wholesale and shot them when they refused to acknowledge a belief in God. At least none in the East as far as I can tell. The worst is the lack of empathy exhibited by people who claim to be have compassion and morality. How they have worked so hard to silence the ugly truth of this. To silence the voices of the victims with a cold lack of empathy such a great lack of compassion for the suffering of their ideas and their reducing of people to subhuman. When I think of Jean-Paul Sartre and what he did [107]. What Jean-Paul Sartre did was evil and he is individually guilty of repression and absolute hypocrisy. As are all of the others who with political power have repressed and murdered and denied the rights of those victims to speak out. But this we see first hand as a common behavior pattern over and over again. The lack of empathy while claiming to have the greatest compassion for the depraved condition of the common man. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is straying ever further from the purpose of a talk page, and ever closer to a soapbox. How is any of this last comment relevant to the issue of improving the article? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that Sartre did NOT, contrary to the reference supplied by LoveMonkey, deny the existence of the gulags. He did refuse to sign one statement against the gulags for political reasons, but not because he didn't think they existed [108]. --Dannyno (talk) 10:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No SNALWIBMA, as you are not Nietzsche and here you will not be allowed to take both sides and poison the well. Article collaboration is not driven here by logical fallacy (which keeps it from inducing insanity to bad no one told Nietzsche that, but then he wouldnt have listened anyway). What you just said is the opposite of what you just stated before when you posted..

"Sorry, but unless a source clearly identifies "militant atheism" as a cause, we cannot ascribe the effect to it."

Neither of your posts or statements make any sense in context of what is going on here. As is apparent in that you make generalizations get called on them and then deny that you engage in this type of counter productive and disruptive behavior. You have a distinct pattern of over looking or making blanket statements over and over again. And then claiming some degree of outside abuse or your own incompetents as justification for this counter productive behavior. You say that this or that has not been addressed when it has or that something was not said when it was or that something was not sourced when it has been or that something is either Original Research or POV when it is sourced by sources other then those posting it. If you know and you readily state that any power took a position of militant atheism. Why would you then try to say that this position has no factor, no role and responsibility? If even as I and other posters have pointed out that it was specific in scope and explicitly atheist. Your logic does not follow and so it betrays a POV and ulterior motive.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The basic problem with searching for occurances of the phrase "militant atheism" and then reading them back into this article as examples of the kind of thing this article is about, is that there is only one definition of "militant atheism" in the literature - so far as anyone has found and posted here, anyway (i.e Baggini). We have no evidence here that Baggini's definition is the one generally used in the literature. How do all these other sources define "militant atheism"? Unless you know that, I do not see how they can be used as sources. They might mean something completely different. --Dannyno (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy. Fallacies can not be used as justification for anything.LoveMonkey (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how No True Scotsman applies. My point is simply that we appear to *have* no generally accepted definition in the literature (Baggini's certainly isn't one). Therefore, how do you know that any particular reference to "militant atheism" is a reference to the meaning used in this article (assuming that is clear, which I would say it isn't), and not to something else? That's all. --Dannyno (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well then stop using the fallacy. What we've been finding is that references that you have been providing have not even mentioned the term but you redefine what these references are talking about e.g. Communism, Stalinist, Leninism, Nationalists et al as "militant atheism" because it suits your point in the talk page. That is fine but accept that when we show that the source can't be used in that way. The topic here is the "Pitesti prison" and so far we have seen nothing that says that the events at Pitesti prison are related to "militant atheism". Contradicting what Dannyno has said I'm perfectly happy to look for the words "militant atheism" because so far the references to that term have been good but are not focused on the term (as the example book with the 70 or so uses of "Communist" and "Nationalist" but only single use of the word "atheist"). We're not redefining the term (as the fallacy suggests) - it is you who is redefining it to cover the references you have provided. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Wrong. Its no fallacy to say militant atheists committed atrocities and forced people through torture to give up their religious beliefs. Its no fallacy to provide examples.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Right. it would not be a fallacy to provide examples. The problem seems to be your finding the examples from reliable sources that correctly attribute this to the subject of this article. So far the references you have provided fail to do this. Because 'A' can sometimes be 'B' then what some 'A' may do can't be put into an article on 'B' as if it applies to all 'B'.Ttiotsw (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think there were enough sources shown above to justify some additions somewere in the sub-section "Soviet Union" (which perhaps should be renamed as "Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact states" or "Soviet Bloc") of the section "Marxism-Leninism", like the following: "Marxist-Leninist militant atheism resulted in the administrative elimination of the clergy, the housing of atheist museums where churches had once stood, a continuous stream of hate-propaganda designed to terrorise the faithful into submission, the imposing of atheism through education (and forced re-education through torture at various prisons, such as the Piteşti prison).", as far as I see, the sources cited above have claimed that the reason why marxism-leninism has done these things was because of its "militant atheist" policy. In my opinion, the Pitesti Prison can also be mentioned here, because, as claimed by the articles already mentioned above, it was used (by persons who "were proud of their atheism, and militant about it") to forcefully re-educate people as atheists ("it was decided they must be tortured in truly unimaginably degrading ways to attempt to undo religious faith.", "the prisoners were required, under torture, to verbally renounce everything they believed about God.","The purpose: “re-education” through physical and psychical destruction, the transformation of young people into atheists", I think it is common sense, that these are aggressive militant atheist acts, also according to the definitions already provided about this term in the article "The terms militant atheism and militant atheist are designations applied to atheists who are, or are perceived to be, hostile towards religion", and the acts done at that prison were done by marxist-leninist militant atheists, and these acts were clearly hostile to religion), and it seems this was an important prison in the eastern bloc (according to this article, "it is considered the largest and most intensive brainwashing torture program in the Eastern bloc"). Cody7777777 (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Such an addition would be synthesis on your part. As we see with this "Mikhail Gorbachev aptly stated, the Soviet communist state carried out a comprehensive “war on religion.” 1 He lamented that the Bolsheviks, his predecessors, even after the civil war ended in the early 1920s, during a time of “peace,” had “continued to tear down churches, arrest clergymen, and destroy them." (my bold) then we have the primary driver which were the Bolsheviks and Communist state. Throughout the globalmuseumoncommunism.org it correctly highlights the Communists as the perpetrators. The word "militant" is used 4 times in the globalmuseumoncommunism.org site (only 2 would be relevant here), with "atheist/m" being used around 4 times and Bolshevik around 17 times, nationalist/m being used around 30 times and obviously communist/m being used around 295 times. That site is how communism interacts with religion. Which leads us to the Richard Wurmbrand material. Your link here on the APPEAL FOR THE INTERNATIONAL CONDEMNATION OF THE CRIMINALITY AND ILLEGITIMACY OF COMMUNISM once again focuses on "Communism". The Piteşti prison is and always will be about internal Romanian politics and that it highlights both the paucity of morality of the religious dogma as much as the effectiveness of communism in running a country. This article is about "militant atheists" or "militant atheism". If we don't see those magic words then I don't see why we should allow it to be a WP:COATRACK for stuff that barely fits into other articles. Ttiotsw (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The title of this article ("militant atheism") is a "descriptive term", not a "proper name", so I don't think it is really necessary to use only sources which use the exact terms "militant atheism" or "militant atheist"), sources which describe acts which are "militant atheist" according to the definition described already in the article ("Atheism which is actively hostile to religion"), can also be used (at least, unless, there are more contradicting definitions of the term). (And I have not seen yet a radically different definition of this term, if significant different definitions would exist, I assume they could be found easily.) The Pitesti prison was indeed part of the internal politics of the Romanian marxist-leninist regime, but as already stated several times, an important characteristic of that regime was "militant atheism" (I think this is clearly proven by enough sources), so the internal Romanian politics of that regime were also influenced by "militant atheism", and while information about that prison can also be mentioned in articles about "communism" or about Romanian politics of that time, that doesn't really mean, that it cannot also be mentioned here (since this agressive or militant form of atheism was an important element of their ideology). The article mentioned above also claimed "Atheism took rather savage forms in our country at that time...Moreover, that atheism translated into a form of vicious anti-religion that included a systematic, often brutal campaign to eliminate belief.","This meant not just forbidding religious practice and jailing ministers and believers but employing torture to force them to renounce their faith. It was not enough to contain, silence, even punish believers in prison; it was decided they must be tortured in truly unimaginably degrading ways to attempt to undo religious faith.", and as far as I see these aggressive attempts to impose atheism on other people are the main focus of the article, and it claims that the persons trying to aggressively enforce atheism through these acts, were "Communists who were proud of their atheism, and militant about it", so I do not understand how exactly this is related to WP:COATRACK (which is actually, just an essay). I have to say, that I do not really see any major problem with adding a mention about this prison (and I think it is just common sense that the acts done at that prison are also related to "militant atheism"). Cody7777777 (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

China and the militant atheist

I would also like to suggest the addition of the Ankang and it abuse over time to convert various non-Judeo-Christian believers (including Muslims) to atheism.[109].LoveMonkey (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Where in Ankang_(asylum) does it mention "atheist". That is about political prisoners. The ref also doesn't mention the word "militant" so where exactly does it say "militant atheist" ?. Plus [110] seems to be rather more a blog than a WP:RS. The refs should include the words in some unambiguous way and the refs should be non partisan and what we would deem a reliable source. The reference at best highlights the "administrative atheism" (as used in The Final Revolution: The Resistance Church and the Collapse of Communism By George Weigel on page 120) rather than an intellectual conviction). Ttiotsw (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You stated we can not use Wikipedia articles as a source. So stop asking for it to be one. The source I included very much so validates the militant atheistic practices of the CCP. You really just can't accept that this is happening and is wide spread and that the vast majority of religions are directly or indirectly being negatively affected by militant atheism. You really are against having this information accessible to people aren't you. As you are not trying to making the truth complaint to the policy and standard but you are using policy to outright censor it and not allow it in any form to be posted or have a voice. This is every bit for the tyranny that one appears to claim to be against. Rather then tyranny is bad period it is the tyranny I support it the only good tyranny. As you have not brought any moderate or neutral sources to the discussion. You appear to be assuming that religion is not at all receiving any kind of persecution from any for of atheism let alone militant atheism and that is simply and unrealistic and unWikipedia assumption, as it violates the very spirit of collaboration. You simple oppose. You offered distraction, distortion and fallacies (style over substance, Loki's wager, No true Scotsman) but not even a moderate position on this. As for your other comments again you are against policy. As you are not assuming good faith. American Asian Review.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Your source was and still is unreliable. This is not a WP:FORUM to discuss the topic. Ttiotsw (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

American Asian Review/January 1, 2001 is not a forum its an academic journal. The link is a reprint of the article as it appeared in the journal it is not merely Julia Ching having a discussion on a website somewhere. Also neither are it's sources at the end of the article. And the enacting of militant atheism's agenda onto society in China belongs in an article here on the topic. How is it that I have to continue to state the obvious. When are the administrators going to stop pointing out my indiscretions and start calling others on theirs? LoveMonkey (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You wanted to add text using [111] as your reference. I said that isn't a WP:RS. I never said your other reference was a forum - please read WP:FORUM. It is a Wikipedia guideline about what Wikipedia is not and it is not a forum to discuss the topic. It does not means that some reference you provide is a forum. If a reference you provide is not a reliable source then I will state that as "not a WP:RS" or some such words. Your last reference simply shows that with Jiang Zemin then "(He) accepts the threat of Falun Gong as an ideological one: spiritual beliefs against militant atheism and historical materialism.". It is much too much WP:SYNTH to then throw in whatever you can from Ankang on that one relationship. You should be adding stuff to the.....Jiang Zemin article. Ttiotsw (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The article states Jiang Zemin was making the statement as a government official stating government policy against the Falun Gong movement and what the official government stance on the movement is. The entry belongs here as well as in those other places as it is the official government of China's justification for its treatment of the movement being that it is an ideological one: spiritual beliefs against militant atheism and historical materialism."LoveMonkey (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

OK so in this article we would say that "In China, Falun Gong was seen by Jiang Zemin as an ideological threat to militant atheism and historical materialism." using your reference. It's irrelevant to this article how the Chinese government actually manages its internal politics though. Ttiotsw (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

OK so I will add it.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I slightly amended the sentence because, contra LoveMonkey, the article does not actually say that Jiang Zemin made any such statement. Rather, it is the author's summary of what she takes to be his attitude. I've clarified that. --Dannyno (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The 'Cambridge Encyclopedia' on stateuniversity.com

The website name makes it clear it could have nothing to do with Cambridge University in England. It can't be used as a source as it is a mirror/fork, see Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Stu. Dougweller (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)