“In God We Trust”; everyone knows the motto of the United States, proudly proclaiming its deist credentials. Although the phrase itself was in use far longer, it was officially adopted in 1956. A few years before in 1952 the National Day of Prayer was formalised. Likewise “Under God” is added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the same decade. The timing is no coincidence, the start of the Cold War marked a desire to distance the US from communist Russia, the enemy of the day for nigh-on half a century.
Devil’s advocate time - if there’s one thing everyone knows about communism, other than it’s bad (more on that soon), it’s that they officially don’t believe in no God, USSR founder and commie poster-boy Lenin writing“Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism.”
The other thing good Americans knew about communism was that it invariably made whichever countries were afflicted with it murdering hell-holes; Stalin killing about 15 million of his own people, Pol Pot killing around a fifth of Cambodians and Mao clocking up anywhere between 40 and 60 million. The obvious conclusion people drew, made evident by the emphasis on national religion in the '50s, if your nation loses its spirituality, the mass-killings couldn’t be far behind. For if you have no fear of God, what’s to stop the commies from lining you up to be shot?
Of course, the spectre of communism collapsed like a soggy trifle as America’s big bad guy 20 years ago, even though memories are long and some countries still nominal cling on to the name of communism (and are still shit places to live). Now our enemy is not godless Russia, they are most reverent, willing to go to the extreme and die for God, kill for God. The Taliban, al-Qaeda, conflict with Iran and other areas of the Middle East; all define themselves as faithful and devout. The atheist is no longer the enemy, it is the extremist believer.
Tl;dr: How much does the Cold War '50s attitude impact atheists today (the things mentioned in the first paragraph, for instance), and how much does the ongoing ‘War on Terror’, as opposed to impacts drawn purely from religious creed? Is it easier to be an atheist today than 20 years ago and how much does this have to do with the aforementioned events? Was being an atheist even easier before either?
I think most people who aren’t religious fanatics have figured out that atheism being a part of Marxism doesn’t imply that Marxism is a part of atheism. And if they do, we can give them Karl Rove as a counterexample. (Unless he is a mole - quite possible.)
As for hellholes, usually true but China seems to be a bit less of a hellhole than it was before.
As for religious fanaticism, they’ll tell you it is fine so long as it is for the right type of religion. That’s Christianity and now Judaism, at least until the Rapture.
The '50s view was just the pod people falling into line. You went to the church but not the gay bar of your choice. It is very striking. The Nancy Drew from the original books of the '30s had no interest in religion. The rewrites and extensions to the series in the '50s had a line shoehorned in about her going to church on Sunday before going back to the case. Quite clearly forced in by the publisher not wanting Nancy to be too independent. The ones from the '90s seem to have lost religion again. (Cite: me reading tons of these things to my daughter.)
It’s always convenient when the opposition includes a notable stinker. It isn’t fair, but it has the effect of smearing their entire viewpoint.
A few Post Office workers cracked up and got violent, and the meme “Going Postal” was born. Does anyone really think that the Post Office is intrinsically violent? But there ya go. Just ask the Catholic Church…
Christopher Hitchens had a good comeback for the Communism = mass murder scolds. The czar was not only a political autocrat but also head of the church. The emperor of China is a demigod. Their societies were ignorant enough to give ordinary human beings that much authority because of religion. When cruel men like Stalin and Mao take over, they can exploit that in order to conduct mass murder. And if you argue that religion had been a moderating influence on their preceding autocrats, I’d remind you of Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, the Taiping Rebellion, etc., etc.
The SS was not based on the model of German Liberal thought, amicable to atheism; but on Catholic thought: based on extinguishing all dissent (yes, they liked to think of themselves as Jesuits, but in practice they were more like the boneheaded brutal Dominicans of the Inquisition).
Liberalism and atheism do not advocate drastic, murderous measures. Marx wrote as much about reform as he did revolution. And where his reforms (social security, public education, unemployment and retirement insurance, etc.) were enacted, his revolutions never occurred.
I grew up in the 50s and 60s when communism was an actual threat, but I never saw a relation between atheism and communism when I was questioning religion. Now that communism is waning I do not see it affecting my views either.
It’s totalitarianism that’s a primary cause of mass murder. Some totalitarian regimes use religion as a tool to prop up their power; other totalitarian regimes use opposition to religion as a tool to prop up their power. Religion itself is neutral.
The question of whether there is or is not a supernatural being or state of being has absolutely nothing to do with political viewpoint.
People like to associate ideas they find repugnant together, as if they were related.
Like opponents of evolution have linked evolution to atheism, and to homosexuality, and to socialism, and to mass murder.
These things have nothing to do with one another, but some people view the world through, say, christian eyes, and see everything that is not in perfect agreement with christian philosophy as part of one giant allied force of “evil”, all working together.
It’s the egocentric view of the world that comes from the belief that you’re more special than the rest of humanity because you believe in something that others don’t.
I would note by the way that the extent of Stalin’s crimes weren’t known in the 50s, and that obviously Mao’s and the Red Khmers’ crimes hadn’t happened yet.
I think the point is that people who seek power will use whatever school of the thought , religious or atheist, to garner favor amongst the population they want to control.
If there’s a connection between totalitarianism and athiesm, the only reason might be because the Church has often been a competing instrument of social control and therefore an enemy of the state. It has nothing to do with atheism being intrinsically tyrannical or religion being a moderating force.
North Korea is about as religious a state as you’re likely to find, and it’s a despotic hellhole. The Middle East is (was) home to most of the totalitarian states on the planet, and every single one of them used religion as a justification. Even secular leaders like Saddam Hussein resorted to religious rhetoric when it suited their purposes.
I just don’t think there’s much of a correlation at all.