Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Can we talk about an atheist regime?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Can we talk about an atheist regime?
    Posted: 27-Sep-2008 at 01:38
For the background of this thread, see:
 
My apologies, but if this is not the place for the present topic, please people in charge here, relocate it to the proper board. Thanks.
 
----------------------------
 
Is there such a thing as an atheist regime?
 
Yes, certainly.
My own view of course.
 
Since there are atheists in the world and they have their ideas on how to govern men, so when they get to be in charge of governing a country, they certainly can be called an atheist regime.
 
And such an atheist regime would be composed of atheists who are going to rule the country, so as to achieve the goals which atheists aspire after for a people, even for mankind at large.
 
Oslove
 
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2008 at 01:52
Not in the way you can call some regimes theocratic.

Theocratic regimes are, by their very definition, driven by the religious doctrine which guides the regime's actions.

Atheism is not a belief system. It is just one belief, that there is no such thing as divinity. How exactly can you govern entire nation states according to this one belief?

Are there regimes where the people in charge happen to be atheists? Certainly. But that doesn't mean the regime itself is dominated and guided by this one simple belief - that would be impossible because ruling a nation requires a whole belief system for anyone to do a comprehensive job of things.

And it goes the other way too. Just because most members of the New Zealand parliament happen to be Christian, that doesn't necessarily mean that New Zealand is a state which is run by a "Christian" regime.

You need more evidence to show a regime is of a certain theological stance. The personal beliefs of the leaders do not necessarily translate into concrete policy.


Edited by Constantine XI - 27-Sep-2008 at 01:53
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2008 at 02:50
We have to find out what people mean when they call a government an atheist regime, and then what components they have in mind which provide the grounds for them to call a government an atheist regime.
 
First component I would imagine is that the principal and decisive heads of such a government are atheists.
 
But I will try to obtain the meanings of an atheist regime as the term is to be encountered in the web, namely, the meanings intended by users of the term.
 
Oslove
 
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2008 at 06:23
Originally posted by oslove

We have to find out what people mean when they call a government an atheist regime, and then what components they have in mind which provide the grounds for them to call a government an atheist regime.
 
First component I would imagine is that the principal and decisive heads of such a government are atheists.
 
But I will try to obtain the meanings of an atheist regime as the term is to be encountered in the web, namely, the meanings intended by users of the term.
 
Oslove
 
 
The problem is that when you call a country one which is ruled by an "atheist regime", it brings to peoples' minds a nation state which is guided and directed by atheist principles. For the reasons I have already put forward, namely that atheism is merely a single belief and not a comprehensive belief system, this is a bit ludicrous.
 
You define an "atheist regime" as a regime where the people in power are atheists. But popular understanding of an atheist regime is one where the government's policies and philosophy are enshrined in the belief of atheism. So here is the discrepancy that must be remedied before we can explore the topic further.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2008 at 08:05
Yes certainly.
I would argue that Turkish secularism could come very close to a so called "atheist regime".
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2008 at 11:10

I agree with Constantine about what an 'atheist' regime would have to consist of, but disagree that that would be impossible, because atheism is essentially a belief system.

Atheism is not agnosticism. It isn't derived as 'a-theism' but as 'atheos-ism'.

However, I'd suggest an agnostic regime is also possible, being one in which no ideological view prevails and there are no ideological goals. Mussolini's fascism was in reality such a system (despite its claims). So would be regimes based on the piecemeal social engineering techniques promulgated by Popper. So it could be bad or could be good: it would just face each new problem with an open mind on  how to solve it.

 

Back to Top
Yiannis View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329
  Quote Yiannis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2008 at 13:56
I'm an atheist myself and cannot consider a country "run" by Atheists. I have differences on political issues with many other people who also do not believe in the "God Delusion", such as on economy, political rights, environment etc. We of course agree on the need to have separation of state and church, educating children that Atheism is an option and actually an educated one etc.
 
(I suggest everyone interested reads "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins -banned in many countries)
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2008 at 14:36
I can easily imagine a country run by an atheist regime. Such a state would not course not separate state and church: the state would eliminate the churches (as far as possible) and keep them suppressed. Religious instruction would not be an option in school (or outside it): it would be banned.
 
All this would of course be justified on the basis that religion is wrong, for some reason or another. Children might well be required to place their hand on their heart and recite a pledge of allegiance to the state every morning. Coins might be struck with legends like "in Man we trust' or, on the right wing, 'In myself I trust'.
 
Of course you could also have a tolerant state with atheist leaders, and you could also have a tolerant state with religious believers at the head. The key though is tolerant; they would not be 'atheist regimes' or 'religious regimes'.
 
There are intolerant atheists. The evangelist tubthumper Dawkins is such a one.
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2008 at 14:52
Atheism by its nature isn't necessarily intolerant of religious belief systems, though. It simply disagrees with their core principle of a belief in a diety. There is nothing in an atheist government to suggest it would actively suppress people of faith, anymore than a Muslim or Christian government would actively try to wipe out the practice of other faiths in their state.

What gcle and Omar have described are intolerant of religion atheists. Since when is your everyday atheist intolerant of religious folk to the point of suppressing their every attempt at practicing their religion?

What I could envisage resulting from an atheist government is a refusal to allow special privileges to religious groups. Church land would be taxed according to its real commercial value, and churches would be required to pay business tax as a profit making organisation. Muslims taking time out to pray would have their wages deducted accordingly. Jews, Muslims and Hindus working in government can forget about demanding meals catered to their specific dietary requirements.

An atheist government would simply refuse special privileges to certain groups based on an apparently unjustified belief in a mythological being.
Back to Top
Yiannis View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329
  Quote Yiannis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2008 at 14:57
I respectfully disagree to the "intolerant evangelist" part. Please read the book. You'll see that it's mostly about the right of Atheists to be open about it. Today, in some countries (see US) declaring oneself as atheist equals being "immoral" or worse.
 
What he calls for is for the right of Atheists to dynamically challenge openly the believes of theists as what we believe it to be: a delusion.
 
People should have the right to believe to any god they want, even if that is the "Supreme Whore of Aldebaran" but Atheists should be equally free to call it a Delusion and schools should explain the Atheist believes in the same manner as those of the Theists.
 
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Back to Top
Yiannis View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329
  Quote Yiannis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2008 at 15:00
Back to the topic, I believe Albania was in 1967 declared an atheist state and all religions were outlawed.
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2008 at 15:20
Originally posted by Constantine XI

Atheism by its nature isn't necessarily intolerant of religious belief systems, though.
There's nothing inherent in religion that makes it necessarily intolerant of atheist systems either.
 
It frequently is/has been but that's a different matter.
It simply disagrees with their core principle of a belief in a diety. There is nothing in an atheist government to suggest it would actively suppress people of faith, anymore than a Muslim or Christian government would actively try to wipe out the practice of other faiths in their state.

What gcle and Omar have described are intolerant of religion atheists. Since when is your everyday atheist intolerant of religious folk to the point of suppressing their every attempt at practicing their religion?

What I could envisage resulting from an atheist government is a refusal to allow special privileges to religious groups. Church land would be taxed according to its real commercial value, and churches would be required to pay business tax as a profit making organisation. Muslims taking time out to pray would have their wages deducted accordingly. Jews, Muslims and Hindus working in government can forget about demanding meals catered to their specific dietary requirements.
The last bit sounds pretty intolerant to me. Unless you mean demanding for free. Why should anyone demand meals catering for them for free, no matter what their beliefs? On the other hand, if they're paying for it, where's the problem? Airlines provide special dietary meals for religious groups.
 
An atheist government would simply refuse special privileges to certain groups based on an apparently unjustified belief in a mythological being.
Whether the belief is justified or unjustified is irrelevant. However, an atheist government could also easily deny certain privileges to certain groups based on their beliefs.
 
Consider the early days of the French Revolution: the cult of Reason was an atheist one, no? And that denied religious groups meeting places for worship.
 
I'm not saying an atheist-led government would necessarily be intolerant, merely that it could easily be, and if it were then it would be legitimate to call that an atheist regime.
 
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 27-Sep-2008 at 15:23
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2008 at 15:36
Originally posted by Yiannis

I respectfully disagree to the "intolerant evangelist" part. Please read the book.
I haven't specifically read The God Delusion, I just am turned off by his attitude of 'I'm right, you're wrong' that has pervaded the stuff I have read.
You'll see that it's mostly about the right of Atheists to be open about it.
If that's all, then fine. Certainly I don't approve of banning anything he writes.
Today, in some countries (see US) declaring oneself as atheist equals being "immoral" or worse.
What I have objected to in Dawkins here and there (cf his 'scale' of 1-7) is that though he calls himself an atheist, he pretends much of the time to be agnostic. So do many of his followers. That's just political spin designed to attract an audience.
What he calls for is for the right of Atheists to dynamically challenge openly the believes of theists as what we believe it to be: a delusion.
But I don't see him ever accepting that what he believes may equally be a delusion, like the Selfish Gene.
People should have the right to believe to any god they want, even if that is the "Supreme Whore of Aldebaran" but Atheists should be equally free to call it a Delusion and schools should explain the Atheist believes in the same manner as those of the Theists.
As long as they don't promote any of them that's OK with me. Barbara Phillips and I wrote the high school textbook Northbourne Tales on that basis.
 
They should also be taught that none of the systems atheist, theist or other, are actually proven in any scientific sense, and shouold be kept out of science classes.
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2008 at 16:06
Originally posted by gcle

There's nothing inherent in religion that makes it necessarily intolerant of atheist systems either.


I'm not sure that is entirely true. Don't the Bible, Torah and Quran at some points or other condone/excuse/encourage the killing of non-believers? (this is half a question of inquisition and half a questioning of your above assertion - I have heard that this is the case but am yet to verify for myself). Is there not at some point in those rather large religious texts a point of reference which a person may refer to which allows killings of those who abandon their faith, or choose to live according to morals outside the boundaries established by the faith? Certainly these belief systems condone harsh punishments for such "crimes" as blasphemy - an act which a person would qualify for through most of history (including the time period these religions were invented) if they simply stated "I don't believe there is a god".

Originally posted by gcle

The last bit sounds pretty intolerant to me. Unless you mean demanding for free. Why should anyone demand meals catering for them for free, no matter what their beliefs? On the other hand, if they're paying for it, where's the problem? Airlines provide special dietary meals for religious groups.


I did mean in them demanding it for free, as is sometimes the case in the Australian public service and in academic institutions. Serving up a luncheon with no vegetarian option (which Muslims and Jews would take recourse to in the absence of Halal and Kosher respectively) could conceivably lead to a few discrimination cases before the civil claims tribunal.


Whether the belief is justified or unjustified is irrelevant. However, an atheist government could also easily deny certain privileges to certain groups based on their beliefs.
 
Consider the early days of the French Revolution: the cult of Reason was an atheist one, no? And that denied religious groups meeting places for worship.
 
I'm not saying an atheist-led government would necessarily be intolerant, merely that it could easily be, and if it were then it would be legitimate to call that an atheist regime.


I see what you mean here. My point was that an atheist government wouldn't necessarily go so far as to resort to wanton oppression, merely that a typical atheist regime would go further than a secular government by refusing special privileges based on religious grounds.

You are, of course, correct in your assertion that an atheist government would have the capacity to also be oppressive (as would any government based on any belief system).
Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2419
  Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2008 at 16:34
I'm not sure that is entirely true. Don't the Bible, Torah and Quran at some points or other condone/excuse/encourage the killing of non-believers?


Only if the non-believers, "offend God" AFAIK, and only in certain circumstances and at certain time periods, none of which are in effect currently I believe.

(including the time period these religions were invented)


I don't like using the word "invented" in reference to classic religions. Certainly there are invented religions (like the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster), as well as "re-constructed pagan" religions, of which they are creating an entirely new tradition (which I wouldn't classify as entirely invented per se.)
However I wouldn't use invented as describing the major world religions. To me that seems like the creation of the religion was an intentional thought in the mind of one man or a group of individuals which seems unlikely to me. It would be like saying language was invented. Did a bunch of people just decide to start speaking to each other one day? No, of course not. Just in the same way a bunch of people decided to start a religion one day. It was just a natural progression of the human experience like language.

Anyway I do believe that an atheist regime would be characterized as being repressive on all religions. Anything else I would categorize as a secular regime.
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2008 at 16:54
Originally posted by Constantine XI

Originally posted by gcle

There's nothing inherent in religion that makes it necessarily intolerant of atheist systems either.


I'm not sure that is entirely true. Don't the Bible, Torah and Quran at some points or other condone/excuse/encourage the killing of non-believers?
I wish people would stop thinking 'religion' has to be Abrahamic. I don't recall Gautama saying anything of the sort. Or any of the Sikh gurus, though they, unlike Gautama, preached self-defence. In fact I can't think of anything in the New Testament for that matter.
(this is half a question of inquisition and half a questioning of your above assertion - I have heard that this is the case but am yet to verify for myself). Is there not at some point in those rather large religious texts a point of reference which a person may refer to which allows killings of those who abandon their faith, or choose to live according to morals outside the boundaries established by the faith? Certainly these belief systems condone harsh punishments for such "crimes" as blasphemy - an act which a person would qualify for through most of history (including the time period these religions were invented) if they simply stated "I don't believe there is a god".
Same comment. Why do you give so much importance to those particular religious beliefs? Philosophically, anyway, they're no more important than any other, and they are certainly no representative.

Originally posted by gcle

The last bit sounds pretty intolerant to me. Unless you mean demanding for free. Why should anyone demand meals catering for them for free, no matter what their beliefs? On the other hand, if they're paying for it, where's the problem? Airlines provide special dietary meals for religious groups.


I did mean in them demanding it for free, as is sometimes the case in the Australian public service and in academic institutions.
If everybody paid for their lunch, that woud solve the probolem, no? As long as the price reflected the true cost.
Serving up a luncheon with no vegetarian option (which Muslims and Jews would take recourse to in the absence of Halal and Kosher respectively) could conceivably lead to a few discrimination cases before the civil claims tribunal.


Whether the belief is justified or unjustified is irrelevant. However, an atheist government could also easily deny certain privileges to certain groups based on their beliefs.
 
Consider the early days of the French Revolution: the cult of Reason was an atheist one, no? And that denied religious groups meeting places for worship.
 
I'm not saying an atheist-led government would necessarily be intolerant, merely that it could easily be, and if it were then it would be legitimate to call that an atheist regime.


I see what you mean here. My point was that an atheist government wouldn't necessarily go so far as to resort to wanton oppression, merely that a typical atheist regime would go further than a secular government by refusing special privileges based on religious grounds.

You are, of course, correct in your assertion that an atheist government would have the capacity to also be oppressive (as would any government based on any belief system).
Otherwise I agree with JanusRook.
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 27-Sep-2008 at 16:55
Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
  Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2008 at 19:14
I guess we won't arrive anywhere with pure theory. Finding examples would be much more appropriate.

Is the US of A an atheist regime or not? Which European or South American countries are atheist and which aren't?
I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2008 at 19:28
I quoted the early French Revolution, under the cult of Reason. The Bolshevik regime would also qualify, certainly in the earlier period.
 
I'm not sure how you'd assign Confucian societies like that in Vietnam pre-colonisation. It was I gather tolerant, though pure Confucianism is atheist.
 
Another one of interest is the Roman Empire at its peak, when the guiding ideologies were Stoic (pantheist) or Epicurean (atheist), even though the population at large worshipped all sorts of gods. While the Stoics were pantheist, their codes of behaviour and the reasoning underlying them were essentially atheist.
 
Most of Europe at the moment is what JanusRook reasonably called secular, and I might call agnostic in that basically no-one thinks a person's religious beliefs (or lack of them) are of any importance except to him - if then.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2008 at 21:39

Originally posted by Yiannis

Back to the topic, I believe Albania was in 1967 declared an atheist state and all religions were outlawed.

Originally posted by oslove

For the background of this thread, see:

http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=25518

My apologies, but if this is not the place for the present topic, please people in charge here, relocate it to the proper board. Thanks.

----------------------------

Is there such a thing as an atheist regime?

Yes, certainly.

My own view of course.

Since there are atheists in the world and they have their ideas on how to govern men, so when they get to be in charge of governing a country, they certainly can be called an atheist regime.

And such an atheist regime would be composed of atheists who are going to rule the country, so as to achieve the goals which atheists aspire after for a people, even for mankind at large.

Oslove

Originally posted by Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#Communist_Albania

Albania was declared an atheist state by Enver Hoxha,[13] and remained so from 1967 until 1991.[14] The trend toward state atheism in Albania was taken to an extreme during the regime, when religions, identified as imports foreign to Albanian culture, were banned altogether.[14] This policy was mainly applied and felt within the borders of the present Albanian state, thus producing a nonreligious majority in the population.

The Agrarian Reform Law of August 1945 nationalized most property of religious institutions, including the estates of monasteries, orders, and dioceses. By May 1967, religious institutions had relinquished all 2,169 churches, mosques, cloisters, and shrines, many of which were converted into cultural centers for young people. Many Muslim imams and Orthodox priests renounced their "parasitic" past. More than 200 clerics of various faiths were imprisoned, while others were forced to seek work in either industry or agriculture. As the literary monthly "Nëndori" reported the event, the youth had thus "created the first Atheist nation in the world." From year 1967 to the end of communist rule, religious practices were banned and the country was proclaimed officially atheist, marking an event that happened for the first time in world history. Albanians born during the regime were never taught religion, so they grew up to become either atheists or agnostics[citation needed].

Old non-institutional Pagan practices in rural areas, which were seen as identifying with the national culture, were left intact. As a result the current Albanian state has also brought pagan festivals to life, like the lunar Spring festival (Albanian: Dita e Verës) held yearly on March 14 in the city of Elbasan, which is a national holiday.

====================

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Albania#Constitution

The Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the government generally respects this right in practice. According to the 1998 Constitution, there is no official religion and all religions are equal; however, the predominant religious communities (Bektashi, Sunni Muslim, Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians) enjoy a greater degree of official recognition (e.g., national holidays) and social status based on their historical presence in the country. All registered religious groups have the right to hold bank accounts and to own property and buildings. No restriction is imposed on families regarding the way they raise their children with respect to religious practices. The generally amicable relationship among religions in society contributed to religious freedom. The Ministry of Education has the right to approve the curricula of religious schools to ensure their compliance with national education standards, and the State Committee on Cults oversees implementation. There are also 68 vocational training centers administered by religious communities.

Government policy and practice contributed to the generally free practice of religion. The government is secular and the Ministry of Education asserts that public schools in the country are secular and that the law prohibits ideological and religious indoctrination. Religion is not taught in public schools.

  

Originally posted by Ecumenical News International

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1999/novemberweb-only/33.0d.html

Albania, which in 1967 became the world's first official atheistic state, is now fast becoming a model of religious growth and an example to the rest of Europe, according to a senior Orthodox official.

[...]

Religious organizations were strictly forbidden under Albania's hard-line communism.

[...]

The Orthodox Church was officially re-established only in the early 1990s and had, Tsetsis told ENI, made "enormous strides" since then.

[...]

Tsetsis told ENI that the welcome extended to Patriarch Bartholomeos by the government during his visit showed how much the situation had changed since 1992 and indeed since the communist era when Enver Hoxha's government had banned religion. The patriarch was warmly received by Albania's president and prime minister and, in several major cities, by Roman Catholic, Muslim and Bektashi (a Shiite dervish order) representatives, as well as by government and municipal officials.

"The very fact that at a reception given by Archbishop Anastasios in honor of Patriarch Bartholomeos there were not only Orthodox bishops and church members present, but also the President, the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the Parliament, and the whole of the Parliament itself, most of whose members are Muslims, shows how things have radically changed in Albania, and that includes the government's attitude towards the church," Tsetsis told ENI. He added that this "miracle achieved within only eight years" showed that the Ecumenical Patriarchate's decision to send Anastasios to Albania had been "wise and perceptive".

During the patriarch's visit both President Rexhep Meidani and Prime Minister Ilir Meta praised the peaceful co-existence of Albania's various religious communities. "Albanian politicians should draw lessons from the tolerance expressed among the faithful," Prime Minister Meta said.

===========================

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1999/novemberweb-only/33.0d.html?start=2

[...]

"I believe," Tsetsis added, "that in a period when church buildings in Europe are being converted into concert halls and exhibition centers, when parishes are being closed because of a lack of vocations, the Orthodox Church of Albania stands out as an example. Does Europe need a major calamity to rediscover her own Christian identity?"

Tsetsis said that the Orthodox Church had also become the main investor in Albania thanks to funds donated by Christians in Greece, by Greek Americans and by donor agencies following round-table discussions coordinated by the World Council of Churches in Geneva. The church itself was directly involved in the construction of schools, clinics and other buildings, and was providing work for hundreds of Albanians.

[...]

During his visit to Albania, from November 2 to 9, the Ecumenical Patriarch stressed the need for tolerance and the importance of Albania's own ethnic traditions. "We want to assist people to find and develop their faith, and cultivate virtue, especially through the means of their own language and culture," the patriarch said.

There are wide divergences between the various estimates of the strength of religious confessions in Albania. According to the Albanian news agency, ANA, about 70 per cent of the population of 3.5 million is Muslim, about 20 percent is Orthodox and 10 per cent Roman Catholic.

Copyright © 1999 Ecumenical News International

 

From the example of Albania, I am certain we can all agree on what is an atheist regime, and that it  had existed in contemporary history, in Albania.

There are other atheist regimes that had existed in contemporary history, and there could still be atheist regimes today.

Oslove

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2008 at 21:43

Oslove, please limit the size of the pieces you copy and paste to conform to the norms of the forums. Provide a link to sizeable extracts, and perhaps quote a few sentences to specifically illustrate the point you are making.

If you are typing something in from a book there's room for more leeway, but it's simply a waste of space and time to copy in stuff that can read on the web.

Since you're new, I'll leave it at that.

 

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.117 seconds.