So there are atheists who are superstitious? I did not realise that, I figured that the same rational thought that led a person to atheism would preclude holding superstitions.
Would this be done even if they were not doing anything harmful to themselves or others? For the sake of argument, let’s say that they were not willing to accept members under the age of 18, so everybody who joins up can be considered a consenting adult (some Wiccan groups in the US have policies similar to this).
No euthanasia for people who are terminally ill and in pain, even if these people want to die rather than continue to live and suffer?
I think a lot of us are forgetting the OP.
Athenesia is an island country, founded with significant resources, and is apparently self-sufficient enough to get along with out the help of other countries. The OP did not specify that Athenesia is party to any UN treaties, or trade agreements, or any other human rights doctrines.
Iceland provides a somewhat accurate comparison. Though 85 % identify as lutheran, it is a secular country, with a self sufficient island economy, and strong immigration policy. The lutheran ID is tied into their national ID, a leftover from an earlier time.
Athenesia ought to compare nicely. We can expect a high standard of living with state of the art technology, as well as significant centers for research and design. The lack of religion will mean that such institutions will not receive any tax breaks nor subsidies. On an Island economy, things tend to be expensive since they are usually imported rather than locally produced; I doubt many of Athenesia’s population will be willing to part with a lot of hard earned cash to fund such a socially reprehensible movement.
Athenesia would have a strong immigration policy, and may not accept political refugees, or applicants who place a strong importance on their religion. They may not accept immigrants at all. Considering it is an Island with first rate technology, it should not be too hard to make life difficult for AWOL tourists either.
Without Parochial schools, and extremely limited funds for churches etc, It would take a lot of time for religion to gain any sort of authoritative hold in Athenesia. The dominant culture would certainly look down upon anyone who engaged in such behaviour, and given freedom to explore such material, most people won’t be too interested in it. It isn’t taboo, just something that is viewed as a quaint anachronism, and “not done” by anyone who wants to be take seriously.
I thought of some more stuff.
Athenesia might also make things difficult for religious organizations to “stay in the black”. They might stipulate that any religious organization must also be a non-profit charitable one. In addition, they must raise at least 20% of their annual operating cost and distribute it to public charitable causes to retain their license etc.
Atheist organizations for the public welfare would be affiliated with the govt, and would not need such licenses. They could easily do that since their constitution would be founded on the lack of need for religious institutions to care for the public benefit. Since the rules apply to any religion, they are not discriminating, because secular groups are govt affiliated and supported.
OK, given that I’ve assumed the role of Devil’s (ha!) advocate for this scenario, it seems, let me posit some hypothetical situations and I want to see what Der Trihs, Acid Lamp, and others would do if they were in charge of Athenisia:
-
Missionaries manage to infiltrate the country under the guise of tourists. Once there, they begin prosletysing. They begin developing a small, but vocal following. What do we do? Should they be deported, or just executed (to set an example to others?)
-
An extremely charismatic person invents a religion and declares himself to be divinely mandated to give laws to the people. Because of his extreme skill in persuasion (let’s say he has training in neurolinguistic programming or some other proactive form of persuasion) he is able to build up a movement of a few hundred people. These people start handing out pamphlets and trying to convert others. What do we do? Should we restrict their freedom of speech? Should they be jailed?
-
Say the above group of people is suppressed in their public activities, but develops an underground network of worship. Would we allow this to go on unhindered, or would we actively rout it out (through secret police and other aggressive tactics?)
So, should I be allowed to visit Atheisia? I am a Christian. I won’t pretend otherwise. Would I be required to be silent on that subject? I understand that I could never be allowed citizenship there, but can I come as a tourist, or a student at Godless University?
Must I declare myself as a subversive?
Tris
Deported for violating tourist visas, flown first class to their country of origin.
The leader would be sectioned under whatever mental health provision allows for the temporary detainment of those who may pose a danger to themselves or others. Observation and treatment if required.
Unless they pose a threat to themselves or others, leave them alone. If they fail to declare the organisation’s income though, they will be charged with tax evasion.
Not that I would support such a law myself, but logically, if “Athenisia’s” Constitution & other laws allow the forbidding of religious immigrants in the first place, and these guys got in by lying, deporting them for immigration fraud would be legally straightforward.
Neither; history shows that such things feed on persecution. Unless you manage to kill all of the members of a movement, which is hardly ethical and would have all sorts of negative practical consequences. Including rather undercutting the argument that “state atheism” is better because it’s not as violent as a religious government; in fact, you’ve just demonstrated that Athenisia’s religious policies go well beyond simple atheism at that point.
Counter propaganda, education, and other non-violent methods would be better. There’s no reason to assume that he’d be able to persuade a huge number of people. And if he steps over the line into violence or other lawbreaking, you crack down on him for THAT. Watch him for the near-inevitable moment he commits a crime for his ambitions, and then you have him.
Just ignore it, and in the long run social pressure should eliminate it. Unless, again, they start turning violent.
Well assuming they’ve managed to dodge all the safeguards, they will be rounded up and deported. They are illegal immigrants after all. The following will be welcome to form their group, but will be subject to the registration, building laws, permits, etc that any other group would be. I’d play the long run card, and wait for half of them to bail without the charismatic leaders, and the rest to fall apart to economic and social pressure.
As long as he operates within the realm of the law, he can say whatever he likes. People can only be cited, or jailed if they break the law. Religion is not outlawed, just discouraged and unwelcome. Providing they conduct themselves lawfully, there is nothing to be done. If we make public proselytization an offense, similar to unwanted solicitation, than we could cite the offenders until they find a more lawful way of making nuisances of themselves. Again, allow economic and social pressures to take their course. If the leader breaks enough laws, one could jail or deport him. Refuse to acknowledge any complaints of persecution, and focus purely on the secular laws of the country that have been broken.
If the group refuses to conduct themselves in compliance with the law, then the government would have an obligation to rout them out, cite, or jail the offenders, and possibly revoke the eligibility of the group to further apply for recognized status for a period of time. In my version Athenesia does not outlaw religion, so such an underground group has no reason to remain so, in violation of the law.
- Who’s to say that this underground religious minority wouldn’t eventually breed a significant enough number of people. They could still gain enough of a population to make up a significant political force on the local level (what kind of government does this country have anyway? A democracy?) If so, then we’re going to be looking at potential problems like local mayors of religious enclaves not enforcing the atheist laws of the federal government, not enforcing separation of church and school, etc.) What is the government going to do? Send in the troops?
The reason why I’m so interested in debating this is because I’ve learned a lot about the history of the Sephardic Jewish community in Spain and how they developed elaborate systems of practicing Judaism in secret while purportedly being Catholics. A similar thing could happen, with the atheists in the position of the Catholics.
In my version, you would be welcome to visit, or study in Athenesia. No need to declare or identify, since you would be subject to our local laws. Providing you aren’t out making a pest of yourself you’d have nothing to be concerned about.
Slightly more difficult. I imagine Athenesia to be some form of democracy or parliamentary republic. Local officials are responsible for enforcing federal law though, so I don’t an issue with removing an official who refuses to comply with the constitution. Place his or her runner up in place, or hold a re-election. The will of the people in the locality is subject to the law of the land after all.
Oh God (:p) yes. The Dutch may not consider themselves as superstitious, and almost half of them may list their religion as “none”, but an recent national survey found that only 4% of the population considers Friday the 13’th as an “perfectly ordinary day” and 40 % says they occasionally " knock on wood" for luck. The survey gave virtually the same results for Dutch religious and non-religious people.
My mom, who is a typical Dutch atheist woo-woo lady, has at some point or other believed in almost anything. The historical Jesus certainly was on her list, and had his six month in the spotlights, but then he was replaced with crystals, past lives (past lives stuck around longer then the historical Jesus!); incense, herbs, Maya-culture, chacra’s, you name it.
Anne Neville, we never have those “moments of silence” in our public schools.
The neaerest thing we have is the custom, when having a sit-down meal in mixed adult company (atheist/religious) that someone will ask for a “moment of silence” and that request is usually honored by everybody within earshot of the request. It isn’t a full minute, though; just 10 seconds or so.
We have national public moments of silence, however, honoring very public deaths or tragedies. But those are very rare.
It’s amazing how some people think the atheists will take any militant stand at all to prevent religions from forming within the country. That’s not specified in the OP, after all, and doesn’t seem to be an evident behavior in modern, largely atheistic countries either.
The worst I can see is outlawing religious activities that involve making a public nuisance, and such laws would be just as effective against vacuum cleaner salesmen as religion salesmen. Beyond that and a failure to pass laws that are preferential to religion (or a religion), I can’t see Athenesia making any legal or government effort to restrict religion whatsoever.
I feel like the point is being missed over and over again here.
The question here is how long an atheist country would last. The issue of what the government of said country would do to preserve this atheist status, the lengths that it would be willing to go to to insure an atheist majority, is an absolutely crucial question to consider. Therefore you should not be amazed that I’m bringing up the government’s potential use of force to curb religious movements.
The government’s stance on immigration and the spread of religion would make or break this atheist nation’s longevity. If they decided to let religions grow uninhibited, they could very well outnumber the atheists by out-breeding them, and then the country could be very short lived indeed. If they used force to ensure the swift demise of any burgeoning religious groups, they could preserve the atheist majority indefinitely.
I’m amazed at what you’re bringing up because it’s absurd. I noted at my above post the extent to which I think the government would go to “limit” theism. This does not include using force, since that’s not something I can imagine an atheist government doing for the sole purpose of preventing religions getting a foothold in it. (And if that means that the society will not remain majority atheist indifinitely, then so be it.)
It’s absurd to you.
There’s nothing whatsoever that is absurd about a government using force to push an ideology - any ideology - on people. That’s been going on for thousands of years. You really think it’s totally inconceivable that an atheist government would ever use force to maintain the status quo? What if the religious groups started rioting? What if they started using terrorism?
Then they’d arrest the rioters and attempt to arrest the terrorists, just the same as if the local bowling association were doing it.
And no, I don’t see it as impossible that a militant atheistic society could rise up. Heck, one could rise up that started off its existence by firing off nuclear weapons at every nation that was harboring a religious person, theoretically speaking. But that’s not what I see as growing out of the scenario described in the OP. So, based on that, panicked sensationalist hyperbole sounds absurd. To me.
You call it panicked sensationalist hyperbole. I call it practical questions that it would be foolish not to discuss the possibility of in this scenario. To each his own, I guess. I think this is an interesting concept and so its permutations ought to be explored to the fullest, even if they seem extreme.
Religions spread fast. They spread both by charismatic people going out and converting others, and by the members of the religion fucking each other and producing more offspring.
If, in an atheist country, even one small religious sect formed, it has the potential to grow. The question is, how far is the government willing to let it go? Will this atheist government tolerate a 2% religious minority? 5%? 15%? Where do they draw the line?
Honestly, I imagine they’d tolerate it until it was “too late”. You know, when the stealthy theists manage to gain government majoity and then (naturally enough) order the deaths or deportations of all the atheists. That of course being the natural reaction when you have the majority. :rolleyes:
(I base my above theory of non-reaction on the presumption that the idea of legislating religious intolerance would offend too many educated atheists for it to occur.)
Truth be told I think the biggest risk to this colony’s largely atheistic standpoint is immigration; they only start with 10000 people after all, and could become drastically outnumbered within literally hours, depending on the size, composition and timing of wave 2. Against that, the atheists could do literally nothing.
If you presume that the theists are left in the majority long enough to fill up the country to a reasonable equilibrium, I think you’d get what has been described to actually already exist in numerous countries in the world today; a fairly steady proportion of religious people who are benignly tolerated without much fuss. I’d say those real, existing countries are demonstrations in progress that religions don’t necessarily consume atheist countries, even if the religions are allowed to persist.