There aren't many political leaders that spent as much time in religious educational institutions as Stalin & Pol Pot

Pol Pot: 8yrs Catholic school in Phnom Penh 1935 – 1943 - the École Miche

Joseph Stalin was educated at a religious school and attended a Georgian Orthodox seminary for a few years from 16 yrs of age; he performed well for the years he was there, but missed his final exams.

Then, Stalin discovered the writings of Vladimir Lenin and decided to become a Marxist revolutionary, eventually joining Lenin's Bolsheviks in 1903.

Stalin remained religious, even pious, throughout his life (Conquest, 1991).

Historian Edvard Radzinsky used recently discovered secret archives to find that Stalin's reversal on bans against the church during World War II followed a sign that he believed he received from heaven (Radzinsky, 1995). After a mysterious retreat, he began making his peace with God. Something happened which no historian had yet written about. On Stalins orders, a new church hierarchy was concecrated (a controversial move), and Russian Orthodox Churches were re-opened, theological schools were opened, and thousands of churches began to function.

Conquest,R. (1991) Stalin: Breaker of Nations.
Radzinsky,E. (1996) Stalin: The First In-Depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives.

Sorry Squeers. 95% of the frustration I expressed at the start of my last post was directed towards Proxy - who obviously doesn’t absorb a single word that goes against his religious beliefs.

<<I do apologise for not hanging on your every word...>>

No need to apologise, Squeers. But it is extremely important that we watch our every word when discussing religion.

One thing I’ve learnt from OLO is that you should never underestimate the willingness of theists to take what you say out of context and misinterpret what you say. Remember, these people don’t have reason or evidence on their side so they need to invent an angle to introduce their arguments from, or justify their beliefs - even if that means misconstruing what you say (and hoping you don’t notice (i.e. sophistry)), or misrepresenting the motivations of past dictators even.

Here’s a classic example of the willingness of theists to misrepresent atheists from our old, long lost friend Boaz... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6784#101967

I quite understand, AJ, having been misrepresented and taken out of context and attacked with reactionary nonsense from the likes of proxy myself on several occasions. Though you've been at it much longer than I have. I'm afraid reason has no purchase in the greasy grey matter of god-fearing bigots.

Nor 'ethics' Squeers, not any sign of ethics from the 'deeply religious'.

Being able to emit a barefaced lie seems to be a prerequisite for the 'faithful', here on OLO and in the wider world.

Squeers, TBC, AJ and other non-believers.

Having given Proxy the benefit of the doubt on more than one occasion, I have concluded that he is just an immature attention seeker with nothing tangible to contribute except criticism.

And then there's runner.

...

Well, that's enough about runner.

But AJ, I had a good laugh about your forked-tongue description. That was hilarious, and TBC's "He was doing it by proxy" was a sign of an quick wit and fertile imagination. Thank you for the comic relief, guys.

Without moving further off topic, I wanted to clarify my strong objection to the "requirement" of children to adopt their parents' religious beliefs.

This objection does not come from being an atheist. I have no objection whatsoever to parents teaching their children about their own religion.

What I object to is ALL school children being "required" by some fundamentalist Christian parents and state school teachers to have a religion assigned to them. The "If your parents don't have one, then get one" kind of approach.

State institutions should not permit blatant religious indoctrination. If fundamentalist parents need to perpetuate their myths, then they can do it at home or in their churches and leave the schools out of it.

Also, as is likely with many other atheists and agnostics, my non-belief did not come from a desire to be a non-believer. It came from a refusal to accept what I was being told when it clearly did not make any sense to me or when it violated my own sense of what's right and wrong in a civilised society.

My own atheism is a by-product of my own personal attempts at open-minded rational thought processes, not an end in itself. Atheism has very little value in itself if it doesn't come from sceptical (but open-minded) analysis of currently available information and verifiable facts.

The big mystery to me is WHY otherwise rational people accept such contradictory and irrational texts from centuries gone by as effective instructions for how to live their lives in the 21st Century.

I shake my head in disbelief!

A thoughtful piece secularGuy. However i would take exception to anyone describing my belief as irrational. To illustrate why, would the following not constitute "effective instructions for how to live their lives in the 21st Century."

From the Qur’an 4:135
“O you who believe, be maintainers of justice, bearers of witness for Allah, even though it be against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives — whether he be rich or poor, Allah has a better right over them both. So follow not (your) low desires, lest you deviate. And if you distort or turn away from (truth), surely Allah is ever Aware of what you do.”

And from the Prophet’s Last Sermon:
“All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action.”