Randman's call for nonSecular education...

Randman, yet again you are spewing nonsense. This is an idiotic statement. Not all atheists are communists and not all communists are atheists (although most probably are). The two are not the same.Further, the secular nature of communist government is irrelevannt to the atrocities commited. They were committed to assert secular control. The communist dictatorships choose to be atheist because they wanted all the misplaced loyalty people showed towards their particular mythology to be directed instead towards the state.Finally, exactly how do massacres and atrocoties commited by communist regimes (which, as I explained above, have nothing to do with atheism but rather just happened to be atheist) excuse the centurys of pain, anguish and death perpetrated by religion and in it's name? I presume you are an adult, Randman, in spite of some of your opinions. Would you, when confronted with your wrong doings point at someone else and say they did it too? Do you think such an action is really any defense? It isn't, in case you didn't know.This message has been edited by mikehager, 11-15-2005 01:42 PM to remove an innacurate statementThis message has been edited by mikehager, 11-15-2005 01:47 PM

No, Randman. Catholicism, christianity and all the others are subsets of religion. Atheism is not a subset of communism. Atheism is the idea that there are no deities. Communism is a form of government.There has never been, to my knowledge and I defy you to actually present one, a time when mirders have been commited in the name of atheism. Your simplistic idea that communism and atheism somehow equate aside, of course.You really must get your mind around this very simple fact before we can continue. I will even restate it. Communism and atheism are not the same thing.

No, they did not. They killed people in the name of political repression. The fact that they were atheists is immaterial. Their opposition to religion was based on the idea that nothing should come before loyalty to the state.The fact that the brutal, totalitarian regimes happened to be atheists is irrelevant and is in any case in no way an indictment of atheism in general.This applies equally to the many politically motivated atrocities down through the years that have used religion as a cover.This does not apply to the myriad tragedies caused purely for religion's sake. Those can be laid solely at the feet of religion and the mindset it engenders.

You are almost right for a change. The Soviet regime was dedicated to both those ideas in so far as they enhanced the political power and control exerted by the government.

You are incapable, apparently, of seeing what motivates a totalitarian regime. If you think that the Soviet government was interested in anything beyond gaining and holding power, you are simply misled. If you think that their atheistic position was anything more then a tool to use in pursuit of that goal, you are unrealistic.As always when I engage you, I think we are done on this subject. You simply do not understand what you are talking about and don't want to learn.

Lets back this up and make it simple. Lets go back to my first post in this thread. I said that it was simply incorrect to equate atheism and communism, one being a stance on the existence of a deity and the other a political system.Now, Randman, can you answer a simple question? Are communism and atheism the same thing?

I see you cannot in fact answer a very simple question. unsurprising.It is also unsurprising that you make false, inane charges against people who disagree with you.On the other hand, you likely just don't know the answer to my simple question, since you have avoided it. Communism and atheism are not the same thing. The one is not, except in the minds of the ignorant, synonymous with the other.Since you will not, or more likely can not, answer a question. I must yet again cease engaging you on this issue.

It wouldn't be a problem at to teach about religions in history. But what people in the religious right want is not the facts about religion and it's place in history (as is made plain by Randman's emphasis on Christian Protestantism) but about proselytizing to the students.That is the point that is being missed in this entire thread (long off topic forays into how the concept of atheism is so vastly misunderstood and other things not aside), I think. What Randman and others like him want has nothing to do with actual education, but with their desire to maintain the ascendency of there own beliefs at the expense of all others. Several years of "study" into a norrow field like this, pre-college, is silly overkill. It could have no purpose other then indoctrination.Unless... yes...Would supporters of a course in the history of theology that has been suggested here accept it if it were taught with the guiding concept that the actual beliefs were not true? The bible could be studied as literature, the role of Christianity could be studied in great detail. All of the goals (which I believe to be utterly dishonest) stated here could be fulfilled in such a context. Would that be acceptable, or is there maybe some motivation that isn't being mentioned?