The whole campaign currently underway against so-called militant-atheists and secularists is a malicious and reactionary furphy. The fact that there is some anger out there directed at corrupt religious corporations is defensible given that many of these free thinkers are belatedly waking up, after a long sleep, to the nonsense that's been fed them for centuries.
I'm delighted to note that since I suggested above that the Pope was engaging, in Britain, in diversionary tactics, I've seen this speaech given by Richard Dawkins, which backs me up:
http://richarddawkins.net/videos/520894-richard-dawkins-at-protest-the-pope-rally-in-london-sept-2010

It's a very hard-hitting speech that may offend some people, but rather than militant atheism, I would call it justifiable outrage at the Pope's, and his Cardinal's, recent ex-cathedra pronouncements. The hypocisy is rank.

Dear Squeers,

Today I watched for two-hours the ceremony and speech by the Pope in Birmingham’s Cofton Park, dedicated to John Henry Newmann, so I am now grateful for your link where I could watch another ceremony celebrated by Dawkins, and “dedicated” to the Pope.

The different personalities of the celebrants, the different intellectual levels of their speeches as well as the different behavior of the audiences, speak legions. One could feel sorry for the Pope because of his physical frailty, but also for Dawkins for selling himself, his atheism, so cheaply.

Dawkins obviously does not understand what I wrote above, namely, that if atheism is defined as simply “lack of belief”, he should not be surprised that somebody who sees himself as a defender of such “belief“ will reason and warn against this lack.

Dear George,

It would appear that Pope Benedict is now adopting the dubious tactic of twisting the horror of Nazi atrocities into a rope upon which to hang atheists....beyond the pale, don't you think?

Dear Poirot,

I do not think the Pope used a language comparable to yours.

As I keep on saying, if atheism is “lack of (religious) belief” then it must apply to Hitler’s case since in distinction to other killers who did not suffer this “lack” - Crusaders, past and present Islamist terrorists or other religious fanatics - he certainly did not expect a reward for what he did in an afterlife, nor could a punishment there deter him. This belief in no-reward-nor-punisment-in-afterlife makes him an atheist, at least as much as his baptism makes him a Catholic.

You apparently think that an atheist is less likely to commit atrocities, the Pope (and I) think the same about being a Christian. This is not something you can verify or falsify - “less likely” means exactly that - so I would say that both you and the Pope are entitled to your opinions.

As an example that not everybody shares your impression of his visit to UK, see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1313539/POPES-UK-VISIT-Benedict-XVIs-parting-message-flies-home.html, or the article here by the dissident Catholic ex-priest censored by Rome, http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11002.

Dear George,

Pope Benedict did use different language to mine. Here's what he said:

"Even in our lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews...As we reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the twentieth century."

Linking atheism to Hitler and Nazi Party atrocities is obviously a calculated move.
How would you, or the Pope or anybody for that matter, know what drove Hitler. How do know he wouldn't have expected a reward in the "next life"?
It's one thing for the Pope to try and distance the church from such atrocities, but entirely another when he deliberately seeks to tie atheism to them.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote:

"You are right that Castro and Allende implemented, whatever they implemented “in their respective countries” only; this is all I was claiming."

What I meant to say was that Communism and catholicism both have universal ambitions ("workers of the world, unite!" for one and catholic = universal for the other).

I also meant to point out that Lenin was not the only head of State to ambition the exportation of his revolutionary ideals.

Castro extended support to marxist revolutionary movements throughout Latin America. On Cuba's role in Angola, Nelson Mandela is said to have remarked "Cuban internationalists have done so much for African independence, freedom, and justice."

Allende become something of an icon in South America though he did not have time to export his (democratic) Chilean "revolution".

You observe:

"I think that such a minor is equally “incapable of discernment“ irrespective of whether he/she is being taught that there is a loving God or that there is no such God."

What I am suggesting is that parents, school and church should refrain from dispensing any form of religious or atheistic education. The State's action could consist in passing legislation to outlaw such education dispensed by school and church to minors and other vulnerable members of society incapable of discernment.

There is absolutely no reason why any such action should prevent a God or Gods from continuing to love his, her or their subjects, if indeed, He, She or They exist.

Morality, civism, the respect of others, a sense of values are elements that could advantageously replace religious and atheistic education of minors and other vulnerable persons.

There is absolutely no reason why any such restrictions should apply to consenting adults who are in full possession of their intellectual faculties.

As regards militant atheists such as Dawkins, I take a keen interest in what he has to say but I keep my distance. So far, I see nothing to criticise in what he has to say. However, I see him becoming the centre of a fiery campaign which will inevitably give rise to more extremism.

.