Pol Pot, extreme atheist, ordered the destruction of all religions as part of going back to “Year Zero”. Of course, this meant that lots of people got killed.
Sound like (no offense) the No True Scotsman defense.
If you assume that Stalin killed political groups because of his political beliefs, why not equally assume he killed religious groups because of his atheism?
Thus he killed the kulaks because he believed they presented a threat to his vision of a communal society. He killed Christians and Jews because they presented a threat to his vision of an atheistic society. Mao and Pol Pot did the same thing.
And Soup_du_jour - yes, I looked it up, but for an earlier thread on much the same topic, where we discussed if ELF was a terrorist organization or not. That was the thread where I cited the sawmill worker who was horribly injured and barely escaped with his life after ELF spiked a tree.
And I believe they recently went on an SUV arson spree. I can dig up a cite if you like.
Regards,
Shodan
“Does this just mean the moderates are wussies who wont fight for their beliefs?”
No. It means that most moderates are sane. Most moderates don’t latch onto some idea that strikes their fancy and then use that idea to define the world around them in terms of “good” and “evil”.
There are nut-jobs on both the right and the left side of the spectrum. Anyone who believes so strongly that they have all the answers is a lot more likely to eventually lose patience and turn to extreme methods to “educate” the rest of the world.
LIBERAL = LEFT means STALIN was a Liberal ? I doubt Stalin could be called a liberal in any concept of the word. I suppose Liberal can only mean Left inside the USA then… dont you agree ?
Liberal outside the USA means people who defend certain economic and political views that value smaller govt or less interference. Opposite of Conservative in most of the world. Not necessarily leftwing… but certainly tending to Center Left… or Center.
In Brazil for example the Leftwing is Conservative and some of Rightwing politics tends to be Liberal. The issues are more economic policy thou here.Well, OK, but in your OP you mentioned -
which led me to conclude that you were defining “liberals” as an American would.
So in terms of religious vs. atheists, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot are counter-examples of atheists being just as bad as religious folk, or worse. As far as other causes traditionally associated with the Left in America, like environmentalism, Ted Kaczynski is another counter-example.
Although you are correct that in America, the only killings related to the pro-choice/pro-life debate are from anti-abortionists. Of course, the pro-choice side has had its way for the last thirty years or so, which may explain its lack of violence.
No matter how you slice it, you are going to be hard-put to find a group that is entirely free of crazies, regardless of ideology.
Regards,
Shodan
Cite, please? My understanding is that nobody ever claimed responsibility for that sawmill worker’s injuries, except for an anonymous letter to the paper claiming that God had demanded the tree be spiked; given that the mill was logging a small, family-owned stand of trees, it was hardly the typical ELF target.
I do agree that Stalin and Lenin and Mao and Pol Pot all count as examples of leftist extremists; I’d classify Hitler and Mussolini as rightist extremists, in the same way. In the United States right now, the only organized groups who advocate (and practice) murder for political purposes that I know of are on the right side of the political spectrum – Identity Christians, pro-life extremists, and anti-tax militias. In the past, there have certainly been domestic leftist groups that did the same thing, but I’m not aware of any that are currently active.
It’s very important to remember that the lunatic fringe does NOT invalidate the ideas of reasonable people. Those who murder abortion doctors do not reflect on those who advocate a legal end to access to abortion, any more than those who murder bankers reflect on those who call for greater regulation of the banking industry.
Daniel
Of course you left out Al-Qaeda, but I don’t know know how you’d classify them on the left/right spectrum.
I did leave out Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups that are based in other countries; I think it’s useful for this discussion to look at terrorists who grew up in the United States. (It’s not the only way to look at it – note my acknowledgement of Stalin, Mussolini, etc. – but it’s one useful focus)
Daniel
I think there’s a big flaw in the premise that “lack of Nuts” would make a political stance better. After all, if the action of the wacko extremists don’t reflect on the legitimacy of a stance, why would a lack of wackos even factor in?
Not that I’m claiming there exists a position free of wackos, you understand.
I think there’s a big flaw in the premise that “lack of Nuts” would make a political stance better. After all, if the action of the wacko extremists don’t reflect on the legitimacy of a stance, why would a lack of wackos even factor in?
Not that I’m claiming there exists a position free of wackos, you understand.
I’d classify them on the obnoxiously far right. They’re like Fascists with a militant religious tone. (Not to mention they fought the Soviets. :))
Here is the case I was talking about. I think it was Earth First! rather than ELF.
I believe Dave Foreman, the founder, has renounced eco-sabotage, although his book is still available.
What you say about lunatics not discrediting a philosophical position is entirely correct.
Regards,
Shodan
By the way, Canada’s terrorists, the FLQ, were definitely left-wing. They wanted Quebec to seperate, and they wanted to ‘take back the power’ from businesses and ‘cigar smoking men’ and return it to ‘the workers’.
Extremists, whether far-right or far-left, tend to think in disturbingly similar ways. A pile of dung by any other name…
I read you Shodan. The distinction in my mind, and maybe it’s an unimportant one to some (certainly their victims), is that while religions have some supernatural Authority whose “commands” must be followed, atheism lacks any parallel. So my classing of motives would go something like this:
Chinese crack down on Flaun Gong–> Basically about retaining power–> politically motivated.
Nutball shoots abortion doctor–> God says we should. --> Religious motivation.
Taliban bans music, dancing, and just about everything else.–> God told them to? All about increasing control over others?–> Political…or maybe religious…or maybe both.
When governments or other large groups act, I’m not sure you can ever discount political motives, even if they present it as a purely religious matter. When the actors are lone extremists or small sects of true believers, religious motivation is esier for me to believe. YMMV of course.
In any case, I can’t seem to wrap my brain around how lack of belief would stir anyone into extreme action, which is where I commited my error. I define atheism as lack of belief, but some extremist might self-identify as an atheist and include ‘dedication to the eradication of religion’ in their defintion. I can’t say “That’s not true atheism” any more than Christians can say “Paul Hill wasn’t a Christian.” The best either side can do is say that “So-and-so warped atheism/religion.”
In short, you’re right, and I withdraw my objection.
That may be, but I don’t see how that’s philosophically justified. Anarchists hate all laws, which is a position to the right of libertarianism, which hates many laws and is also very far to the right. Liberals generally support just laws and government.
Since the Americans cant get away from their Liberalism = Left… lets focus only on the Atheism part then ?
Stalin and Mao were “atheist” more as being against the power of religion of dominating the masses. I would even go as far as saying that they didnt have religion… not that they were atheists. Atheists think there is no god… Stalin and Mao just cared about power and religion was a problem for their power.
Is there a significant diference between political or religeous motives? It all boils down to enforcing your beliefs and rules on someone who doesn’t believe the same way you do.
Shodan, your cite is a wee bit lacking; the only mention of the tree spiking is in these two sentences:
It doesn’t mention that tree spiking was a technique invented by Wobbly loggers during the early twentieth century as a way of sabotaging sawmills, nor any of the other important details you can read about here:
That’s not to say that tree-spiking is okay. While its dangers are small, it is dangerous, and in 1990 (when I was involved with Earth First!), most of the group’s most prominent members had renounced it. But not all environmental radicals have renounced it, and on the day that one of them ends up killing someone, they’ll be on the same moral ground as abortion-doctor-murderers.
Daniel
Actually, anarchists have traditionally (especially at their height, during the nineteenth and early twentieth century) been opposed to private property as well, and the most famous anarchist crimes involved attacks against pro-business politicians or business leaders. Anarchist leaders famously competed with Marx for followers; Communist Anarchism was a big deal back in the day (Emma Goldman being the best-known example); and in the mid-twentieth century, Anarchists had their last two big hurrahs, with participation in the Spanish Civil War (initially on the same side as Stalin) and with the Situationist rebellions in late-sixties France.
It is the strong anarchist ties to the socialism and communism movements that identify them with the left. Capitalist anarchists are a relatively new phenomenon.
Daniel