The March of Atheism

[WingOver]

As a "devout", heh, non-theist I feel that Midnight nailed it on the head with his first response. Is the regime a totalitarian repressive gov't or an "enlightened" scientifically advanced culture ala Vulcan (not sure if that is a good analogy as I am not that well versed in Trek culture, but I always felt that would be the case with Vulcans)
As a non-theist I am very accepting of others beliefs/faith as I was not born a non-theist I came to my non-belief through much experience and learning so it could be with an "enlightened" gov't. Then you could have state persecution of religion as there is persecution of believers of the wrong belief.
Basically you can generate an atheist gov't of any level of acceptance/oppression for your campaign. To make it believable, you just need to create the justification.

 

[epicenter00]

One interesting point to remember about atheist culture and their hostility to religion is the question of why the government is atheist. In most of the Earth examples, it's simple powermongering for the most part - the government wants to cement power and organized religion tends to "distract" people from such things. However, the Traveller universe is vast and it could be interesting to have an atheist nation that is more sympathetic than just being "evil."

Taking a nod from RL history, let's say a world, 1000 years ago (perhaps 500) years ago was dominated by a number of powerful religions which all purported to be the sole purveyors of the Truth as part of their religious dogma. Perhaps all of these religions arose from roughly the same region of the world and have many overlapping or similar points of their dogma, to the point where an uninitiated outsider might consider them sects of the same religion as their basic tenets perhaps are the same or very similar. Therefore, conflict was inevitable as the religions shared the same holy sites and so forth and had no desire to share - at least on the surface. Of course, as with anything that involves people, it probably had more cynical motives in various heirarchs and firebrands using the other religions to focus the people's attentions away from their own excesses or the inequality of their nations and so on. Regardless, this led to war, and in their planet's industrialized state, the war quickly escalated and the exchanges went nuclear and biological.

However, the faiths survived and in fact, became stronger in the face of nuclear winter and similar upheavals (as is typical of faith in the face of adversity. Indeed, even in the blasted wastelands and such, bands of believers still fought each other over scarce resources, or because they blamed the others for bringing the world to where it was, or because they believed their god(s) were punishing them for being insufficiently zealous and cleansing the world of unbelievers. So the wars went on - the religions turning on their own faithful at times as being insufficiently faithful, utilizing leftover conventional weapons from their national armies.

Perhaps in this world, some scattered survivors decided that it was better to band together to survive, regardless of their previous religious affiliation. Perhaps at first it was a reasonable thing - like simply "agreeing to disagree" and respecting each other's faiths. But perhaps as time went on, after repeated attacks by their previous co-religionists, their own faith begins to slip, instead they become united by their dislike of the old religions - atheism becomes their faith. Those wishing entrance had to prove they were willing to set aside their old religion, but otherwise, they would take anyone. In time, they developed a new "belief" based around the brotherhood (and sisterhood) of all humans and that it would be humans and not supernatural powers that ultimately dictated the rise and fall of humanity.

What if this group came to power, at first just trying to rebuild and keep to themselves, but after repeated attacks by religionists on their world, they set out on their own "crusades" and "pogroms" until they became the sole powers of their world. Children would be taught that religion is a terrible thing - that it led to the wars that nearly destroyed their world. That religion only leads to intolerance and hatred and brings out the worst in humankind by poisoning the mind and stunting things that would otherwise benefit humanity.

Perhaps this group, in the process of rebuilding their world and trying to bring various mutagenic plagues and radiation damage to their gene pool under control discovered how to manufacture anagathics and utilized this in their anti-religion as well as perhaps various technologies involving personality transfer or whatever - basically trying to supply one of the basic things of faith - the desire for immortality.

A group like this would certainly see it as their duty cleanse the universe of the poison of religion. Their own history teaches them (at least their view of their own history) has taught them that religion is a horrible, crippling disease of humanity and the faster it is stamped out the better off humanity will be. While there wouldn't be constant propaganda, obviously the way news is, and with the prevailing attitude, news of other world's religious wars and woes would be broadcast with that smugly sanctimonious view of "ha ha ... look at these poor fools, still living in darkness and fear with their "faith."" Of course, other religions would look at these people as hypocrites, after all their faith is simply anti-faith.

Many of them would probably feel pity against those deluded souls who insist on believing and try gently to teach them a better way. At the same time, others would try and lure the faithful by promising eternal life in the form of anagathics - eternal youth without enslaving oneself to a god or gods. And of course, with such a powerful "faith" there will be men and women in charge of it, and just like the religious leaders of their own planet so many centuries ago, they're still victims of greed, vanity, intolerance, ambition and the entire host of human failings, which means that they'd be willing to use such beliefs to further their own power, becoming the "dark empire" their ancestors fought so hard against centuries before...

 

[Icosahedron]

Hmm, I hadn't considered WHY the Empire might be anti-religion, DC, the questions just hit me out of the blue while I was reading, but I can see how this would affect their motivations and hence their actions.

That was a good hypothetical origin, Epicentre, providing the sort of Empire that would lean toward stamping out religion - if possible. A good number of you think that the underground religions would outlast the government, though - contrary to the apparent beliefs of those numerous dictators who try.

Wingover's technotheocracy Empire would lean more toward religious tolerance, which whilst being a much more pleasant place to live, would have fewer adventure opportunities, perhaps.

Careful, Wingover; I, and no doubt others, appreciate your response, but revealing your personal leanings could be a step onto the slippery slope.
Let's draw back from the edge whilst we may.

All good food for thought, proving the need to flesh out the basic premise with a coherent back story to give the desired effect.

 

[DaveChase]

You are welcome.

Hmm, I hadn't considered WHY the Empire might be anti-religion, DC, the questions just hit me out of the blue while I was reading, but I can see how this would affect their motivations and hence their actions.

In most of life we don't need to know or even understand the WHY among other things to interact with it.
But when looking at cultures (or attempting to design them) it is important to know the why behind what they do.

Look at the beginning of the United States as a limited example:
The primary reason stated for leaving England and starting the war of freedom was because of religious issues. (there are many but small issues depending on whom you talk to)
And look at the USA today (not the paper , many religions are allowed and there are a few that are not. So much for religious freedom. (I am not advocating a different discussion or stance only pointing out a limited historical reference to make a point.)

Some of the more interesting Sci Fi cultures that have been designed or well liked have been based on the why or what if they did something different than what we know. OR if they were totally different in one aspect than our current culture.
Then the good authors expand upon this by making us look at either one common component to all or the entire culture reaction to something that is common to use but uncommon to the culture.

Depending on what you are wanting to do with the Atheist theme, the Why could be very important or not at all.

Dave Chase

 

[Mused]

What if there was a Luddite movement (religions, as a whole, have a definite streak of anti-tech to them) and an advancing technology base was creating unrest in the believers (think Scopes Monkey Trial reactions in the US South)

The rulers, realizing that if the people were allowed, they would actually begin to reverse the forward momentum of development. A good example is the Algerian military when the Muslim Purist Party won the elections... can't be havin' THAT). And far more policy driven, the Turkish military ensures that the civilian government does not swing away from the official state secularity

Or, as stated earlier, they are atheist only vis a vis the belief in the supernatural. Communism, a religion of the here and now *, rarely tolerates religious rivals within its own territory. But they can also go to ground like any other religion.

* they have holy books that are not to be questioned, prophets (Marx, Lenin, some Mao, Che) and great Schisms (Soviet/China) and variations based on interpretations of the aforementioned holy books (Stalinism, Castroism, Khmer Rouge, North Korean, Trotskyite, Anarchist, Maosim, Marxist-Leninism, Third Way, anarcho-syndicalist, the Wobblies, etc.)

 

[casquilho]

One interesting point to remember about atheist culture and their hostility to religion is the question of why the government is atheist. <Snip Interesting story>

I like what you wrote. I found it interesting that what you are also discribing is a religion based around Atheism. Kind of a cool twist I think.

Well done.

Daniel

 

[Bob Weaver]

Thanks for your contributions so far, guys (in case I don't get an opportunity to say so later )

I'm drawing from this that the probable response of an atheist totalitarian regime would be polar - either they would ignore religion as inconsequential unless it formed the nucleus of resistance or they would attempt to wipe it out pre-emptively by a combination of ruthless genocide and UNreligious education, and run the risk of driving it underground.

I like the 'no allegiance higher than the state' rule, that's the sort of thing I pictured.

I wonder how effective the above techniques could be? How long could an underground persecuted religion survive? Years? Decades? Centuries? Milennia? Forever?

I wonder how effective the 'Final Solution' might eventually have been if Hitler had won WW2, for example? A lot of dictatorships seem to think that genocide is a potentially effective tactic, barring interference from 'outside'.

My thinking is that the likelihood of successful eradication of religion in the long term would be the major determinant of policy. If, ten generations hence, they could create an atheist universe, they might try it, otherwise they might just keep a lid on religion and target anyone who steps out of line.

It seems to me that the more intelligent thing for a government that describes itself as atheistic to do would be ingore religion. The least intelligent thing would be to attempt to stamp it out by major show of force, repression etc.
My reasoning is this: those already adherent to the faith would resist and likely be more committed to keeping the religion alive, and those outside the faith (not in every case, surely) would be encouraged to investigate the religion on the grounds of "what's the big deal, why does the government spend so much time/money on these religious folks?" And in case no one else mentions it (I haven't read every post yet) the martyrdom factor cannot be discounted. People willing to suffer loss, be tortured, or die for their religion always attracts attention - and wins converts. Example: the Bolsheviks/Communists in Russia repressed the Russian Orthodox Church, but which of the two is still around?

Are there any real-world historical examples of officially atheistic governments that tolerated or respected religion among the citizenry? The major 20th Century atheist governments have all been named already - and they were all firmly anti-religious.

Interesting topic. Kudos to everyone for keeping the discussion civilized.

Cheers,

Bob W.

p.s. Full disclosure - I am an Orthodox Christian, although under the Patriarchate of Antioch, not Moscow.

 

[Plankowner]

Ignoring religion might be the best way to drive it out.

For example, if religions were forced to pay taxes on donations. If people could not deduct donations to religions from their taxes, etc. The government might be able to do financially what they would not be able to do dogmatically.

People would still donate money to religions, but now the religion would have to account for it and pay taxes on it. That would drive up their internal organizational causes and they would still have to pay taxes. If Priests were given free room and board, that Priest would still have to pay taxes on it, so the religion would have to pay the priest so he could pay his taxes, again driving up costs. Having to pay Property Taxes on all those churches and monastarys would be expensive too. As costs go up, influence goes down and religion could become just another company...

 

[epicenter00]

Plankowner honestly has it right. A lot of modern societies are like that. The easiest way to stamp out religion is to not care about it.

Perhaps the government wants to "treat all faiths equally" without making value judgements if a religion is a honest religion or some pyramid scheme/"Church of Grand Poobah Epicenter"/cult or not. So instead of giving religions tax-exempt status (which only encourages such scams) they start taxing all religions.

Instead of having "ancestral" religious holidays-turned-secular, perhaps all employers are required to give their employees 31 days of paid vacation per year (not including sick days). These days can be divvied up in any way the employee pleases, but the days they'd like off have to be applied for at the beginning of the year so the employer can plan for it.

Give the people plenty of other pursuits and social outlets away from the temple/mosque/church/tabbernacle.

Oh yeah, and anagathics. The desire to avoid death is a big factor in most religions.

 

[Anthony]

Since we're talking about Traveller, we might as well point out the Zhodani solution: simply classify religious belief as a psychological disorder, and heal it like any other sort of antisocial behavior (Zhodani are great. They combine being individually pleasant with being societally extremely creepy.)

 

[aramis]

Bob: Both the Communist Party of Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church are still around. The Soviet "suppression" was never terribly complete, and while the other faiths went underground, it was the laxity in enforcing the restrictions on the Russian Orthodox that really enabled the Catholics to survive.

And Plankowner does have it right. To kill off a majority of religions, simply register them as normal for-profit businesses, and tax accordingly.

 

[Captain Midnight]

For example, if religions were forced to pay taxes on donations. If people could not deduct donations to religions from their taxes, etc. The government might be able to do financially what they would not be able to do dogmatically.

People would still donate money to religions, but now the religion would have to account for it and pay taxes on it. That would drive up their internal organizational causes and they would still have to pay taxes. If Priests were given free room and board, that Priest would still have to pay taxes on it, so the religion would have to pay the priest so he could pay his taxes, again driving up costs. Having to pay Property Taxes on all those churches and monastarys would be expensive too. As costs go up, influence goes down and religion could become just another company...

Speaking here as a church treasurer, the situation is a little more complicated than that. In the US, the reason that you can deduct donations to a church from your taxable income is because churches are treated like other charitable organizations that qualify under Section 501 (c) 3 of the IRS code and 26 USC & 170. You can deduct contributions to a recognized church, or to Habitat for Humanity, or the American Red Cross, or many others.

Churches have restrictions placed on their activities by the government -- for example, in the US, churches are not generally allowed to endorse specific political candidates, although they may certainly educate on the stands taken by different candidates. They also may not dedicate "substantial" parts of their time or resources to lobbying for specific causes, and the IRS will investigate claims that churches have violated that rule. Churches need to document their income and their expenditures.

This position of separation has not always existed historically. There have been times when organized churches were taxed just like anyone else, and sometimes even more heavily. It was adopted because the work of churches was generally seen as benefiting the community as a whole... which brings me back to the general idea here of the thread.

There's a difference between "religion" and "a hierarchical church". A government that is hostile to a given church may or may not be hostile to the various sorts of religious belief that people have adopted. For example, a government that wishes to eradicate the influence of a church that claims divine inspiration and exerts strong control over its followers may be well-disposed to a faith that exhorts its constituents to care for their neighbors in small lay-led groups that disavow any overtly political stance. Don't throw the religious baby out with the hierarchical-manifestation bathwater, to mix some metaphors.