In the Friday letter, “Atheists have killed over beliefs,” the writer asserts that because Stalin was an atheist he therefore committed his crimes in the name of atheism. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Stalin killed millions in his pursuit of power and control of the populace. There is not one verifiable instance of him using atheism as justification for his actions.
Yes, Stalin was an atheist. So was Pol Pot and Mao. And like Stalin they murdered in the pursuit of power, not for atheism.
And this leads me to my second point. Most atheists and secularist are willing to admit when one our own has committed atrocities. I find it very telling that most religion people will not do the same. They always seem to pull out the “No True Scotsman” fallacy by saying that the person was never really followed the teaching. I find this very dishonest, especially when all evidence point to the contrary. If someone claims to be a part of a religion, I consider them part of that religion until proven otherwise.
But we miss a bigger picture here in the assertion drawn by the author. It is the misunderstanding of what humanism is. She has obviously not had much interaction with humanists. Otherwise she would know that it is not a religion, but a way of viewing and interacting with the world. This idea that a stance that self-identifies as non-religious is still seen as a religion is laughable. A little education can go a long way. And I am talking about from an actual humanist, not Conservapedia or Fox News.
Robert Ray
President Humanists of North Puget Sound
robertr@humanistsnps.org
Granite Falls
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
