Atheist man opens fire on Muslim students at UNC Chapel Hill

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Al, WHY in your view were Christians in the USSR persecuted?

Is this a serious question? The Bolsheviks were militantly anticlerical (far more so than Marx or (especially) Engels were, actually) and acted accordingly once in power. The various religious minorities didn't have a particularly fun time either.

And you think it's ridiculous to claim they were anticlerical due to the fact they were trying to establish a VERY centralized form of society and government that was dependent on everybody buying in (or forced, whatever) and being good little cogs in the machine?

By that same logic, you could argue that organized religion is an agent of social control, so no one has ever actually been persecuted for having the wrong faith, but for being a threat to the powers that be.

Religion is absolutely an agent of social control for those at the top.  Think Vatican City in the Dark Ages.  Doesn't mean individual radicals don't terrorize and kill in the name of their god or that Al Queda isn't largely faith-based martyrdom (who obviously use their methods to achieve a political agenda, as well... but still).

[Mopsus]

Al, WHY in your view were Christians in the USSR persecuted?

Is this a serious question? The Bolsheviks were militantly anticlerical (far more so than Marx or (especially) Engels were, actually) and acted accordingly once in power. The various religious minorities didn't have a particularly fun time either.

And you think it's ridiculous to claim they were anticlerical due to the fact they were trying to establish a VERY centralized form of society and government that was dependent on everybody buying in (or forced, whatever) and being good little cogs in the machine?

By that same logic, you could argue that organized religion is an agent of social control, so no one has ever actually been persecuted for having the wrong faith, but for being a threat to the powers that be.

Religion is absolutely an agent of social control for those at the top.  Think Vatican City in the Dark Ages.  Doesn't mean individual radicals don't terrorize and kill in the name of their god or that Al Queda isn't largely faith-based martyrdom (who obviously use their methods to achieve a political agenda, as well... but still).

And do you deny that there were/are individual radicals, unaffiliated with any government, who lauded the suppression of religion in the Soviet Union, or would like to see the same thing happen today? 

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Al, WHY in your view were Christians in the USSR persecuted?

Is this a serious question? The Bolsheviks were militantly anticlerical (far more so than Marx or (especially) Engels were, actually) and acted accordingly once in power. The various religious minorities didn't have a particularly fun time either.

And you think it's ridiculous to claim they were anticlerical due to the fact they were trying to establish a VERY centralized form of society and government that was dependent on everybody buying in (or forced, whatever) and being good little cogs in the machine?

By that same logic, you could argue that organized religion is an agent of social control, so no one has ever actually been persecuted for having the wrong faith, but for being a threat to the powers that be.

Religion is absolutely an agent of social control for those at the top.  Think Vatican City in the Dark Ages.  Doesn't mean individual radicals don't terrorize and kill in the name of their god or that Al Queda isn't largely faith-based martyrdom (who obviously use their methods to achieve a political agenda, as well... but still).

And do you deny that there were/are individual radicals, unaffiliated with any government, who lauded the suppression of religion in the Soviet Union, or would like to see the same thing happen today? 

No.  My entire point is that it's not nearly as common.  IMO, it's like comparing a a guy who robs a 7/11 to Bernie Madoff.

[Mopsus]

Al, WHY in your view were Christians in the USSR persecuted?

Is this a serious question? The Bolsheviks were militantly anticlerical (far more so than Marx or (especially) Engels were, actually) and acted accordingly once in power. The various religious minorities didn't have a particularly fun time either.

And you think it's ridiculous to claim they were anticlerical due to the fact they were trying to establish a VERY centralized form of society and government that was dependent on everybody buying in (or forced, whatever) and being good little cogs in the machine?

By that same logic, you could argue that organized religion is an agent of social control, so no one has ever actually been persecuted for having the wrong faith, but for being a threat to the powers that be.

Religion is absolutely an agent of social control for those at the top.  Think Vatican City in the Dark Ages.  Doesn't mean individual radicals don't terrorize and kill in the name of their god or that Al Queda isn't largely faith-based martyrdom (who obviously use their methods to achieve a political agenda, as well... but still).

And do you deny that there were/are individual radicals, unaffiliated with any government, who lauded the suppression of religion in the Soviet Union, or would like to see the same thing happen today? 

No.  My entire point is that it's not nearly as common.

Perhaps not. Then again, who's to say that even those individual radicals commit violence for the reasons that they say that they do? If we're going to get into the business of judging people's motives, we can just as easily say that their hatred is inspired by good old-fashioned sectarianism, which can manifest itself around practically any distinction.