I didn’t know “most unjustly screwed” was measured strictly by body count. :rolleyes:
I see it this way – at one end of the atheist intolerance spectrum, you’ve got religious fundamentalist countries where even saying you’re an atheist gets you an instant death penalty. At the other end of the spectrum, in “atheist-tolerant” countries (like the United States), you’ve got elected leaders who will say atheists aren’t true citizens, and entire communities that will harass and stigmatize atheists. At least the Jews/Christians/Muslems/Buddhists/whatever can find someplace on this planet where they’re accepted…
I’d have to go with the Arawak/Taino Indians of Hispaniola. Their extinction in a period of less than 50 years after the arrival of Columbus is a rare case of total genocide of a people. Can’t get more screwed or unjust than that.
It’s not exactly an atheist haven because they’ve merely traded worship of “State” for worship of a god.
Remember, in any religious war, atheists are always on the wrong side.
Disease did contribute to the extinction of the Taino, but slavery, forced labor, and murder by the Spaniards did the rest. Not only were the people annihilated, but their entire culture (now known only through archeological finds) disappeared as well. No matter how badly other groups listed in this thread have been treated (and I’m a member of one of the most persecuted), at least they still have members around to carry on their legacy.
Actually, there was also much intermarriage (not necessarily voluntary) between Spaniards and Taínos. The Spaniards didn’t bring women to the islands (especially Puerto Rico) until later, so they “married” with the locals. I think there was/is a genetic study going on in Puerto Rico to determine what percent of the population had Taíno DNA (about one third was the initial finding).
Was their culture destroyed? Most of it. Some words survived, used even today even by non-Spanish speakers (hurricane, barbeque, hammock, all derived from arawak). Names of places were also preserved. Some taínos escaped to mountains and wilderness and their communities lived on much more than 50 years (of course, eventually they mixed with the neighbors).
I think the Tasmanian Aborigines were also the victims of total genocide, weren’t they?
Welllll, let’s not get into the whole “No True Scotsman” can of worms. I think it’s fair to call Communists atheists; I would agree that in functional terms 20th Century Communism seems to have come up with all sorts of religion-surrogates and God-substitues, but that still doesn’t make them theists. Fucked up atheists, maybe, but not theists. Of coure, being atheists doesn’t make them “secular humanists” or “freethinkers” or (more broadly speaking) “liberals”, any more than you can just lump together the Quakers, the Taliban, Bahai’s, and Adolf Hitler on the grounds that they all believe or believed in “God”.
“Freedom from religion” means that atheists are not forced to profess or support opinions they disagree with, just as “freedom of religion” means that Christians are not forced to profess Buddhism or pay for the upkeep on the local mosque. It derives automatically in the sense that freedom of religion means the right to peacefully maintain ones own views, which necessarily means freedom from–not being coerced into supporting–opposing or different views.
Though I vote for Jews (persecution and slavery over the longest period, starting in Ancient Egypt), the Armenians of 1915 deserve mention, too. Particularly since they were the victims of the first of the widescale (million+) intentional genocides of the 20th century.
For the sake of argument, let us adopt that definition. I don’t see how regarding atheism as a religion amounts to forcing atheists “to profess or support opinions they disagree with.” (Mind you, this is separate from the issue of whether atheism should be considered a religion or not.)
Besides which, I think it’s rather extreme to call this “freedom FROM religion.” I would think that your phraseology is more than adequately captured in the terms “freedom of religion” or “freedom of religious belief.” The term “freedom FROM religion” conveys far more than that – and, in fact, is often used in demanding more than mere personal liberty of belief, as evidenced by this link, for example.
(Note that the author says “So I don’t feel wrong in demanding freedom from the religious beliefs of the people in Washington… . our public officials need to keep it in their Church because no matter what anyone wants it to be, the United States is not a Christian society.” In other words, he’s saying that “freedom from religion” means that he shouldn’t have to hear public officials express their religious beliefs. Obviously, that is quite different from merely exercising the right to personal belief… regardless of how one interprets the separation of church and state.)
You’re saying that they’re not the most screwed nit the most unjustly screwed? So you’re saying that others have been more screwed, but in those cases the oppression was less unjust. Scary idea. I don’t think atheists even make the list. Can anyone cite an example of atheists being massacred?
I can’t believe no Africans have been nominated. That whole continent has been screwed. Slaughtered, enslaved, slaughtered some more.
JThunder, I think we’re about to exceed the parameters of this thread. If you want to reply to what I say, you should probably open up a new thread.
“Freedom from religion” is mainly a rhetorical device, not some sort of legal term. The point is, some Christian accomodationists or neo-establishmentarians seem to be under the impression that “freedom of religion” means “freedom of Christians to practice Christianity, and everyone else can just pipe down”. To say that Christians need to “keep it in the Church” is not how I’d put it–Christians have the right to publicly express their beliefs, with “public” in the sense of “public message boards” and “publish a newspaper” and so on–but Christians should keep it out of the courthouse and the state house and city hall, in the sense that the government should not be getting involved in religious affairs. If Joe Congressman wants to preach a sermon or teach Sunday school down at the church where he’s a lay deacon, that’s fine. Joe Congressman shouldn’t be telling people how to pray or where to pray or who to pray to in his official capacity as a congressman. Of course, there are inevitably gray areas. What about public policy issues where Joe Congressman’s views on abortion or welfare reform or the capital-gains tax or whatever are dictated by his religious beliefs?
Nonetheless, government institutions should stay out of the Ten Commandments business and the “trusting in God” business, just as they should stay out of the Affirmations of Humanism business or the “religion is bunk” business.
Which still doesn’t necessarily make atheists “the most unjustly screwed ethnic religious minority in the world?”
eva, excuse my asking, but is there a point to this excercise that you’ve unleashed? There is no shortage of atrocities imposed upon one group by others. Is there any point in making it a competition?
Pick a continent.
Native American civilizations decimated.
African tribes which enslaved each other and then were systematically enslaved and cultures demolished.
Australian aborigines, and on and on. Track it back to one group of proto-humanoids killing off a competeing group.
So what if I was able to make a convincing argument that the two thousand year plus track record of persecution imposed upon the Jews is “worse” than any other? It shouldn’t and does not diminish the suffering of any other group. It all sucks.