Athiesm, Punishment and Killing

[iceaura]

And yet, atheistic demagogues have overtaken all known atrocities by theists. Why?

Seems unlikely, at least on a percentage basis - which would be the relevant one. Large scale atrocities by even nominal atheists are a fairly recent phenomenon, in general.

Exactly, so atheism as a lack in belief is also a belief system. Apparently one can promote godlessness.

Of course one can promote godlessness - of many kinds. But atheism is not a belief system, it is a property of a belief system - many quite different belief systems are atheistic.

In governments, oppression of rival religions is a recurrent theme. ”
Is it? Do all governments oppress a rival religion?

Not all. But it's a recurrent theme. The exceptions - such as the modern US - are worth studying.

I'm not. I'm being told, repeatedly and by numerous well-informed and interested people, that my assumption of flexibility and manipulability in the Quran is in error and reveals great disrespect for the last and perfect teaching of Allah. ”
How do they reconcile the Madhabs and the position of the Islamic scholars in relation to those Madhabs?

They don't usually say.

How do you know what they believed? Did they not do what they did because they all believed in the same godless society?

I know they were raised in strongly, fundamentally, theistic homes for the most part.

What other motivation did they have for killing hundreds of thousands of people?

Looks to have been the same as others have had before them - mostly theists, if that makes any difference to you.
The theistic Germans at the time killed a lot of people for belonging to the wrong theism. That has been a common justification, over the years - but whether it truly describes a motive or not, I suspend judgment.

However, he believed in the superiority of a godless society which is what set him apart from them.

Quite a few believed in the superiority of a godless society, and Stalin was set apart from them as well. Apparently that isn't the discriminating factor.

No I blame it on his desire to promote atheism at the expense of theists' lives and freedoms.

His desire to promote atheism ? He sure didn't like them atheist religions (except Communism) - seems odd he would have turned down the opportunity to spread the faith easily and quickly.

Unles his desires didn't have much to do with atheism.

Are you sure Stalin was atheistic, personally ?

 

[Michael]

They had to devalue the Japanese Emperor for the occupation to succeed. So they abolished Shinto as a state religion and disarmed the Japanese armed forces.



Basically they destroyed the basis of Japanese religion. They also attempted to dimantle Japanese zaibatsu or the economic conglomerate which define Japanese economy and were associated with the Japanese Empire. However they were less successful in that.

I guess it would be equivalent to the Lama declaring he was not a reincarnation of the Buddha under Chinese military force.

1) The USA military should not stick its nose into anyones religious superstitious crap.

2) At the end of World War II Hirohito went on a tour of Japan (this was the first time 99% of the Japanese saw their Emperor) as he stood next to MacArthur (who absolutely dwarfed Hirohito by over a foot - MacArthur was 6 foot 5 inches) and at this time it is recognized that most Japanese gave up their beleif in the Emperors divinity because (a) they lost the war and (b) the man looked pretty un-Godlike next to the images they had in their mind during the war. Hirohito did deliver a very inspiring speech where he asked the Japanese people to lift the unliftable and carry the uncarriable burden. And they did and now they are rich.

3) You don't seem to get that Americans didn't push for the demilitarization of the Shinto religion - the Shinto Japanese did themselves. Separating it from the State (of which was less the 100 years) they thought was the best thing for Japan. It probably was. Either way, to be clear, see #1 for my opinion on the USA and religion.

4) As for dismantling the Japanese zaibatsu - do you honestly think that this went against the wishes of the Japanese people? In essence this divided up the land amongst the Japanese people. Which was under the terms of surrender on the advice of the Japanese who wanted Japanese people to have land. They only have these islands with 3 small plains. THOSE Japanese thought it was a good idea to give land to the Citizens of Japan. MacArthur agreed and *big surprise* so did the 99 million Japanese who received land.


Now, I am 100% sure you would agree if the USA were to coerce the Japanese to become Xians that this would be WRONG. Suppose they installed a government of Americans that was ran by Americans and then taxed all Japaneses (who at this time barely had enough rice to EAT, a rice-tax unless they converted to Christianity. Oh, and also restricted those Japanese who did not convert to become Xian from serving in their own government - I think you would agree that this would be evil. Oooo wait, replace the word Xian with Muslim and Japanese with Persian and it's all good. Then we'll rewrite history (there were no nukes just sweets and candys and lollys). Yup all good. Everyone knows Islam is the only true beleif in the world (although no one seems to agree what that is - - other than there's one God and some Arab said something he heard in his head from said sky-daddy).

Yup, those backwards Shinto polytheists would be much better off living as Muslims, like the Pakistani, Iraqi, Afghani, Arabs, Indonesians, Malaysians .. you know the pinnicals of human development and model society *puffs on joint rolled in Afghan grown Qu'ranic-entanglement*

 

[S.A.M.]

You don't seem to get that Americans didn't push for the demilitarization of the Shinto religion - the Shinto Japanese did themselves.

do you honestly think that this went against the wishes of the Japanese people?

Are you kidding? The most imperialistic and proud people in the region wanted to get rid of their armed forces and destroy the religion that had defined their identity for thousands of years?

They wanted to dismantle the economy?

Well I guess if you say so it must be true.

Strange that they resisted both so strongly then.

When Japan surrendered in 1945, the landing of American troops on Japanese soil represented a unique event in Japan's national history, since they were the first ever to occupy the land of the Rising Sun. The American army was the only one in Japan's history to have set foot on its territory. Moreover, this Army came to impose on the Japanese people an ideology radically foreign to their mind-set, spirituality, and national identity.

One of the first policies of the American occupational government was to prohibit the teaching, in all the schools of Japan, of the above mentioned Shinto texts, namely of The Book of the Gods and The Book of the Emperors. The Japanese posed no resistance to these hostile actions. (But then again, why should they have resisted? The gods had clearly said that it was necessary to accept the terms of surrender and to go on "living"). Japan bowed its head with a smile: "Democracy? Sure! The Emperor is a man like everyone else? Very well! You call our political and military leaders 'War criminals.' We assume that you are right, since you have won the war, and as history teaches, the winners are always right." The Japanese smiled until a peace treaty, relatively and comparatively not too harsh, was signed. They smiled until the day when the last soldier of the American occupation forces left the land of the Rising Sun. The following day, the sacred texts of Shintoism were re-introduced in the classrooms.

During the occupation of Japan, sixteen zaibatsu were targeted for complete dissolution, and twenty six more for reorganization after dissolution. Among the zaibatsu that were targeted for dissolution in 1946 were Asano, Furukawa, Nakajima, Nissan, Nomura, and Okura. Their controlling families' assets were seized, holding companies eliminated, and interlocking directorships, essential to the old system of inter-company coordination, were outlawed. Matsushita, while not a zaibatsu, was originally also targeted for breakup, but was saved by a petition signed by 15,000 of its union workers and their families.[2]

However, complete dissolution of the zaibatsu was never achieved, mostly because U.S. government rescinded the orders in an effort to reindustrialize Japan as a bulwark against Communism in Asia.[3] Zaibatsu as a whole were widely considered to be beneficial to the Japanese economy and government, and the opinions of the Japanese public, of the zaibatsu workers and management, and of the entrenched bureaucracy regarding plans for zaibatsu dissolution ranged from unenthusiastic to disapproving. Additionally, the changing politics of the Occupation during the reverse course served as a crippling, if not terminal, roadblock to zaibatsu elimination.

 

[Michael]

Are you kidding? The most imperialistic and proud people in the region wanted to get rid of their armed forces and destroy the religion that had defined their identity for thousands of years?

They wanted to dismantle the economy?

Well I guess if you say so it must be true.

Strange that they resisted both so strongly then.

A) See #1 from post 142

B) Do you think that the American Military had a deep understanding of Japanese Shintoism or Economic structure? Jesus, just look at Iraq and you can get an idea of the depth of the Military's grasp of the local superstitution and economy.

C) Again see #1 from post 142 if you are in any way confused as to my standing regarding the USA's involvement in local suprestitoin. If the USA does anything other than what I post in #1 of 142 then you know my standing on it.

So if Americans overreached I am completely and 100% against it - and I will state here and now that IMO they were wrong in even thinking of doing such a thing.

Wouldn't you agree SAM? An invading army has absolutely NO RIGHT AT ALL to interfere or change or coerce or dismantle or condemn or degrade or abolish the religious beleif of those people whose land they have invaded?
Do you agree that any such action would be morally repugnant and evil?
yes or no?

D) RE: Zaibatsu that's absolutely true. The idea was that the Japanese invaded and slaughtered Chinese and Koreans because they didn't have enough land and needed to expand. The Japanese themselves said this was why they invaded various lands. Also, I don't think its a fair reach to suggest that the European colonization of everywhere seriously prompted the Japanese to consider forming a wall of colonies to protect the main islands.

Interestingly, the Americans of that period not only wanted the Zaibatsu reinstated but also wanted the Japanese to do more than that - they wanted them to re-militarize and fight. If you recall MacArthur wanted to start dropping nukes (maybe 4 to begin with) on China. Obviously the Japanese said no. Hmmmm almost suggests that the Japanese ruling Japan at this time were at least partly responsible for many of the "concessions" made in WWII. I mean, after all, now was their big chance... right? Gee I wonder why they didn't' take it? Why didn't they change their constitution and rearm?

 

[S.A.M.]

Why didn't they change their constitution and rearm?

Why don't you look it up and tell me?

 

[Michael]

You missed a question:
An invading army has absolutely NO RIGHT AT ALL to interfere or change or coerce or dismantle or condemn or degrade or abolish the religious beleif of those people whose land they have invaded?
Do you agree that any such action would be morally repugnant and evil?
yes or no?

 

[S.A.M.]

You missed a question:
An invading army has absolutely NO RIGHT AT ALL to interfere or change or coerce or dismantle or condemn or degrade or abolish the religious beleif of those people whose land they have invaded?
Do you agree that any such action would be morally repugnant and evil?
yes or no?

Absolutely, though I think opposing any conversion to their own beliefs for almost a hundred years is also extreme.