can’t hardly blame china for not wanting evangelical christianity to spread. it’s not typically the moderates who try to spread the word of god, and the people who do aren’t the ones you’d want influencing your system when it’s a system so havily built upon systems of control

Even with the presence of the Scientific Method a, or several religions may turn out to be correct. I do believe religion should be taught in schools. And along with all global religions the story of the Flying Spaghetti Monster should be included too, as a demonstration that many stories may be true, but if they all present the same level of evidence and lack of methods to be tested they should all be thrown into the same [best Vulcan accent] “Possible, but highly improbable.”

The trouble is when the community establishes athiesm as a universal truth while religion is something to be monitored. I understand and agree with some of your arguement, Ryan, but I think you’re in denial to the fact that athiesm in many cases IS an organized belief system forced on people. It is very much so in China.

I’m willing to bet you’d be very offended if the tables were turned and the groups being “monitored” were people who refused to believe in a God. For a libertarian, you have some awfully un-libertarian ideas. People should have the right to believe in any which way they want. The answer to the multi-billion dollar question is quite simple: No monitoring. Period.

But if people are to have freedom and liberty, to what level do you think the government should be able to control religious groups without compromising the liberty of the groups and the individuals within those groups?

That’s the multi-billion dollar question, isn’t it. Clearly it’s a balance, as government involvement in anything is. And, I suppose, if anyone had the answer, we’d all be living in a better world.

Actually there are a great number of followers of atheism

You’re still trying to lump atheists into a group like a religion. It just isn’t that simple. People don’t “follow” atheism, they just don’t follow a religion.

And though I see this falling into a evolution vs. creationism debate – atheism is not taught in most Western schools. Science is taught in Western schools (as it is in Eastern schools). That science doesn’t include Christian beliefs is a shortcoming of Christianity, not failure to create a well-rounded curriculum.

All Christianity need do to legitimize itself to the scientific community (which I assume you mean by “the ‘intelligent’ persons way of thinking”) is to produce evidence that holds up to scientific methodology.

Christians proposing we replace (or even supplement) scientific learning with religious beliefs is (a) a gross disservice to humanity, and (b) a huge leap backwards in the evolution of our species.

There is no organized group. But in the same sense there is no “official” endorsed by God christian organization. It doesn’t take much reading of the bible to realize that this is the case.

In fact you tend to find that with almost anything that people can have an opinion on there are active followers who try and convert people to their way of thinking. Take for example politics and listen to the arguments between republicans and democrats.

While atheists don’t tell people what to do in their life, as in how to live, atheism is taught in most western schools as the “intelligent” persons way of thinking, and a great stigma is attached to those who choose not to follow. Is that still liberty?

I’m sorry that I understood your article to mean that you weren’t against cracking down but as you rightly pointed out controlling and monitoring.

But if people are to have freedom and liberty, to what level do you think the government should be able to control religious groups without compromising the liberty of the groups and the individuals within those groups?

Atheism doesn’t have followers. There is no doctrine. There is no organization. Atheism, at least to my definition, is simply the dis-belief in a god or gods playing puppetmaster to our world.

It is a system of belief though, as much as not believing gremlins will steal my soul in the middle of the night is a system of belief.

Now if not believing in a god or gods was cracked down upon (as most major religions have done for centuries, and continue to do today), of course I would disagree with it. As I disagree with the persecution of all people.

But again, atheism isn’t a group – it’s not organized. It doesn’t tell massive parts of the population how to live, under punishment of fiery damnation.

I don’t disagree with monitoring of the church because I don’t disagree with (at least passive) monitoring of cults, gangs and other large – undemocratic – societies.

And here’s why – I’m a libertarian. I believe strongly in individual liberties and personal freedom. I realize this conversation is about China, and about crackdowns, which both seem contrary to libertarian ideals.

However, though I believe allowing people to believe in whatever they choose is a basic human right, I also believe that people that organize and head religion are very much against libertarian methodology. Societies with largely religious populations are rarely free to think, act and do as they please.

Near without exception, they have an iron-clad top-down hierarchy of control. No free will, and no democratic process, which assures free will.

Bit of a long explanation there, but I hope I’ve clarified what my meaning was. Again, I’m not in support of crack downs (nor did I say I was), I am in support of (at least some) monitoring and controlling of religious organizations (for all the reasons above).

Just because they don’t follow lots of binding traditions/believe in a higher power doesn’t change the fact that people have the right to believe in it’s ideas.

Would it be ok for a crackdown who actively promoted/argued for atheism in the name of stability?

If old fashioned organized Christianity were the governments chosen belief system, and everyone were taught follow that religion. Would you still think that it would be ok for the government crack down on other beliefs including atheism for the sake of stability?

See the last link in the post.

Atheism isn’t a religion any more than not believing in Santa Claus isn’t a religion.