Category talk:Persecution of Christians in the Eastern Bloc

Categorisation

I have added Category:Persecution by atheists to this Category as the reason for persecution of religionists in the Eastern Bloc is state atheism. This should make it easier since individuals don't need to directly add that category to individual articles since it's a parent category. Eliko007 (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

No, "the reason for persecution of religionists in the Eastern Bloc is state atheism" is incorrect, unsourced and original research (as already determined here). A more accurate Category:Religious persecution by communists has already been added. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

According to the article, Persecution of Christians in the Eastern Bloc:

Across Eastern Europe following World War II, the parts of the Nazi Empire conquered by the Soviet Red Army, and Yugoslavia became one party Communist states and the project of coercive conversion to atheism continued.[4][5] The Soviet Union ended its war time truce against the Russian Orthodox Church, and extended its persecutions to the newly Communist Eastern bloc: "In Poland, Hungary, Lithuania and other Eastern European countries, Catholic leaders who were unwilling to be silent were denounced, publicly humiliated or imprisoned by the Communists. Leaders of the national Orthodox Churches in Romania and Bulgaria had to be cautious and submissive", wrote Geoffrey Blainey.[6] While the churches were generally not as severely treated as they had been in the Soviet Union, nearly all their schools and many of their churches were closed, and they lost their formally prominent roles in public life. Children were taught atheism, and clergy were imprisoned by the thousands.[7] In the Eastern Bloc, Christian churches, along with Jewish synagogues and Islamic mosques were forcibly "converted into museums of atheism."[8][9] The total number of Christian victims under the Soviet regime has been estimated to range between 12–20 million.

Thus, the sources support that the countries of the Eastern Bloc were atheist states (atheism being the official state religion imposed by force on the people) and that persecution against Jews, Christians, and Muslims, including confiscation of property, imprisonment, and death, were imposed as an official campaign of persecution by atheist states (irrespective of whether the individuals carrying out the persecution were themselves atheists, or motivated by atheism). bd2412 T 03:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Since atheism isn't a religion, the phrasing "conversion to atheism" is kind of problematic, though I don't doubt some of the sources use it. What was happening was coercion of people to abandon their religious beliefs. It's religious persecution, to be sure, but it's not because of some competing religion such that atheism is the driver of the persecution (i.e. persecution by atheists as opposed to religious persecution by communists). It is religious persecution, and the perpetrators may have been atheists, and they may have also been bearded men, white men, etc. such that it would also be factual to categorize as "persecution by bearded men". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

We are talking here about people who are declared atheists using the coercive power of the state purely to try to force people who were not atheists to become atheists. If bearded men were using state-sanctioned confiscation of property, imprisonment, and violence to try to force men who didn't have beards to grow beards, in keeping with an official state policy that having a beard was a superior state of hairiness, then it would be absolutely appropriate to categorize that as "persecution by bearded men". In fact, my understanding is that some Islamic communities, particularly ISIS, have done exactly that. Of course, they did so not because they believe that having a beard is inherently superior, but because they believe that Islam is inherently superior, and that Islam requires beards. Atheist states by definition adopt state atheism - not state secularism, not a division of church and state where the state offers no opinion on the validity of religion. They may be right, but people can be right for the wrong reasons, and act wrongly for those very reasons, and consequently be reported in sources as having acted wrongly for those reasons. bd2412 T 01:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Rhododendrites is correct that "conversion to atheism" is problematic, but "force people who were not atheists to become atheists" is even more nonsensical. You can't "force" people to lack belief in deities. Skipping past the non-applicable "ISIS beards" analogy, here is the crux of the problem: Atheist states by definition adopt state atheism ... They may be right, but people can be right for the wrong reasons, and act wrongly for those very reasons, and consequently be reported in sources as having acted wrongly for those reasons. No. And reliable sources don't say that. You really need to not cite Wikipedia articles as your source, especially after they have been heavily edited by Jobas, who is known for spamming anti-atheist content into articles that is not supported by the very sources he cites. There is just so much wrong with your assertions that it is hard to know where to start. No; they didn't have an "official policy" of persecution, duh, their "official" stance was religious freedom, it was even in their constitution, because they were very conscious of international outward appearances. In actual practice, however, there was a lot of "persecution", inconsistent as it was, depending on political needs and expediency. If the Church incited resistance to the Soviet program, they were deemed enemies of the state and the clergy was arrested, church property confiscated. At other times, the Church was propped up by the state, it's activities were state-sponsored, the number of churches tripled under state authority. (Gosh - maybe they temporarily found Jesus! Don't be silly.) You are aware, I hope, that "state atheism" isn't atheism, or even related to atheism. It's a poorly chosen nickname used to describe the Soviet Union's policies applied against various organized religions, and really has nothing to do with belief in gods. "Atheist states adopt state atheism" is one of the weirdest things I've ever heard, right up there with "atheism being the official state religion". An "atheist state" was the expected goal of the Soviet regime, which anticipated that organized religion would whither away as an unnecessary, corrupt, oppressive force, once society was lifted up through communism.

BD2412, you created a controversial, extremely problematic category called Category:Persecution by atheist states. That category conveys that the "atheist state" is the cause/source of the persecution, which contradicts reliable sources that say the totalitarian Soviet regime is the source of the persecution. The revolutionary regime saw the Orthodox Church as the primary competition in influence over society, so they passed laws to restrict it; they infiltrated it; they propagandized against it and it's clergy; they struck deals with it, and when it suited their needs, it was even propped up as an incorporated arm of the state (especially during the world war). Belief in gods wasn't a concern. So tell me, if the state is "totalitarian", and "Marxist-Leninist" communist, and Soviet revolutionary, and also happens to be referred to as an "atheist state", why would you create a misleading label implying that atheism was the driving force behind the persecution, when that is patently untrue? Is it just unfamiliarity with the subject matter? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

These are not mutually exclusive goals. Even if you personally would not be motivated by atheism to oppress people who spread religion, that hardly means that it is impossible for others to be motivated in this way. Your objection comes across as more of a personal objection to the existence of the category at all. bd2412 T 12:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I do indeed have a personal objection to unsupported nonsense in Wikipedia, and this new category of yours is one example. You apparently disagree that your creation is unsupported nonsense, so please convince me otherwise. I'd like to examine your reliable sources that convey that people are "motivated by atheism to oppress people who spread religion". Even better would be reliable sources that convey that the specific people you hope to tag with this category were "motivated by atheism to oppress people who spread religion", but we can start with the less specific sources if that would be easier. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The category "Persecution by atheist states" is not "unsupported nonsense." It is uncontroversial fact that there were states that officially endorsed state atheism as the official religion that engaged in religious persecution. This is a real, appropriate, and valid categorization. Personally, I think that with this category, the question of whether those people were motivated by atheism to be irrelevant -- this category documents persecution on the governmental level, not the personal level. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Despite your assertion that it's an "uncontroversial fact", as evinced by the discussion here, it appears quite controversial. Can you provide a reference for "state atheism as the official religion" of any state, or is that merely WP:OR? Mojoworker (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

China is an atheist state: PR of China

The USSR praciced state atheism and had it as its goal: Kowalewski, David (1980). "Protest for Religious Rights in the USSR: Characteristics and Consequences". Russian Review. 39 (4). Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Editors and Board of Trustees of the Russian Review: 426–441. doi:10.2307/128810. ISSN 0036-0341. JSTOR 128810.

The Khmer Rouge was an atheist state: Wessinger, Catherine (2000). Millennialism, Persecution, and Violence: Historical Cases. Syracuse University Press. p. 282. ISBN 9780815628095. Democratic Kampuchea was officially an atheist state, and the persecution of religion by the Khmer Rouge was matched in severity only by the persecution of religion in the communist states of Albania and North Korea, so there were not any direct historical continuities of Buddhism into the Democratic Kampuchea era.

Communist Albania: William B. Simons, Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden. The Constitutions of the Communist World. Springer. p. 18. Retrieved 2011-03-05. Article 37. The State recognizes no religion and supports and carries out atheist propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialist world outlook in people.

I have seen sources described North Korea, Cuba, and some others as atheists states as well. Does this satisfy you? --1990'sguy (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

No. I see none of those supporting your assertion of atheism as the "official religion". Mojoworker (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

It was the official religious/theological viewpoint for all those countries. You bolded the word religion, so I'm assuming you have a problem with me implying that state atheism is a "religion" -- if that is what you meant, I used the word "religion" to keep the wording simple. I am not going to get into an argument here about whether atheism is a religion, but state atheism was clearly the official religious/theological view endorsed by these states. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, exactly – categorizing atheism as a religion has been objected to by several participants in this discussion, and the crux of the objection in the previous deletion discussions (from which the category now under discussion was born), was the equating of atheism with all the religions that were also nominated. @BD2412: why choose the wording "Persecution by atheist states", which clearly some find offensive, when, in the context of Category:Persecution of Christians in the Eastern Bloc, a Venn diagram of "Persecution by totalitarian states", "Persecution by Soviet states" or "Persecution by communist states" would be identical, and serve the same purpose? Mojoworker (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The category name was suggested as a compromise by several participants in the CfD. The original category name, from which this was moved, was the much broader Category:Persecution by atheists. Since there was no clear consensus to delete that category, the decision at the end of that discussion was either to keep it as is or to move it to the narrower title, which is what was done. As to the identity of the categories, if it is the case that "all atheists are communists and all communists are atheists", then the one would merely be a subcategory of the other, though both would exist as part of the same category tree. It seems apparent, however, that individuals can be communists and at the same time be religious (see, e.g., Christian communism). If a Christian communist or a Jewish communist is in a communist state having an official policy of state atheism and punishment of religious belief, and that Christian communist or Jewish communist is being persecuted for their beliefs, it does not seem that the persecution could stem from either the individual or the state being communist. bd2412 T 21:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)