I need to throw my two cents in on this....Johnn Johnston post=18.71618.747476 said:As far as I know, they didn't give leniency to atheists - which, if an anti-religon regime was their agenda, would have surely been the case.Unknower post=18.71618.740853 said:Oh, I don't know, maybe they had a political agenda "RELIGION IS EVILS! OMG LOL send to Siberia."unabomberman post=18.71618.739485 said:Actually NO. Stalin or Mao didn't really do state sponsored killings based on ATHEISM.Eggo post=18.71618.739370 said:Err...Stalin? Mao?The Iron Ninja post=18.71618.739363 said:I'm sure I'll regret bringing this up but I hate the term "militant atheist." Since when have athiests ever killed anyone over something as petty as beleifs? And I am aware that many athiests use the term themselves. But it's a stupid term.
The problem with religion is that people can interpret the messages it brings to suit their own needs. More often than not these needs are violet or greedy. At least atheists are honest about their evil doings.
They did it based on political agendas, and those crimes were not directed at theists either, that's like saying that the Babi Yar massacre was exclusively directed at the jewish population of Kiev when in reality it was a mass atrocity against everyone in there.
Adoption of any religion forces people to believe in things higher than government. In a dictatorship (which is what all communist countries become because human nature rears its ugly head), the threat of a being higher than the ruler of a nation is one that cannot be allowed to perpetuate in the people. In a monarchy, of course, kings justified their rule by "divine right". However, this is impossible to do in today's society because we have have already debunked divine right.