That sounds like what happens to a lot of Christians in atheist and former atheist regimes like the Soviet Union, China, N. Korea, etc.
None of those are "atheist" regimes, professor. They might have leaders that hold no faith, but that does not make the regime atheist. No one has ever killed anyone in the name of their lack of belief in gods. Plenty have, and still do kill in the name of their gods and religion.
Stalin was atheist, but was very good friends with the Orthodox church, since he is like a saint to them now. China persecuted imperialists, and christians are caught up in the mix. North Korea is not atheist at all. Their leaders are their gods. Or are you going to give us the old tripe about how atheists worship themselves.
Your particular group has persecuted others for the past 2000 years, and still does. Your church might not outright demand burnings at the stake anymore, but people still die because of their laws. Women and children are being killed for witchcraft, gays are being bullied to death, or outright killed, abortion doctors are being killed, and AIDS keeps on killing because your religious leaders threaten people with hell if they use condoms.
I was apparently too opaque in my discussion. I was really responding to this statement of @KrisFeenstra's:
"Many modern Christians who view homosexuality as a sin will talk about how the above things are not true Christianity or state how these things are obviously wrong, yet they cannot see that they are perpetuating the problem themselves by perpetuating this sin myth.They cannot see that in many cultures, it is the supposed followers of Christ kicking up the biggest fuss in opposition."
Now, when I offered the alternate case of the violent repression of religious adherents by nominally atheist regimes, what happened?
Well, many modern atheists started talking about how the above regimes were not true atheists, or state how these things (systematic persecution of Christians) are obviously wrong, yet they cannot see that they are perpetuating the problem themselves, by bashing all Christians for the failings of a few. They cannot see that in many cultures it is the supposed followers of secularism kicking up the biggest fuss.
Does that make what I said clearer?
I think I as a theist have to accept when you say that the religious repression that has occurred and still occurs in many cultures is not the atheism that you espouse, and that you would join me in condemning it. Similarly, I think it's rational and fair for you to accord the same courtesy in reverse, and accept that those of us who know the tenets of our faith can say when someone is not truly following the faith or speaking on our behalf, and join you in condemning their actions.
I was really responding to this statement of @KrisFeenstra's
Well, you've quoted it, yet it's highly questionable that you were responding to it.
Does that make what I said clearer?
Not at all.
In what country did any leader kill people in the name of his lack of belief? In what country did the leader's non-belief in god drive him to genocide?
You are missing the point, professor. Yes, some of the regimes you mentioned have/had atheist leaders. But their lack of belief in god had nothing to do with how they governed. None of those leaders claimed their lack of belief as permission to murder, or as a seal of approval for their deeds.
There are two types of dictator, professor. One that has the church on his side, and one that abolishes it. There are good reasons for each.
If you ally with the church, you have all the clout of the spiritual leaders of billions on your side, and can use that doctrine to accomplish all kinds of atrocities (ex. Hitler). You become second to only god, and your authority becomes next to divine.
Now, if you abolish religion, you are removing that "supreme" leadership from the lives of your subjects and replacing it with yourself (ex. North Korea), thus not actually removing religion, just substituting god with yourself. You become god (North Korea).
So, once again, unless you are claiming that tired old cliche about how atheists worship themselves as gods, you cannot possibly say that the dictatorships you named were atheist regimes.
Dictators want to be the main influence and power in their country. What better way to accomplish that than to remove all other sources of influence? Atheism has nothing to do with that. It's just common sense.
Milos, do you mean something like this:
"Who says I am not under the special protection of God?"
-- Adolph Hitler --
"I trust God speaks through me."
-- George W. Bush --
Religious and Atheists know that man on man sexual intercourse is not a sickness but a personal choice and thats how it should be treated.
If so, then so is choosing to be heterosexual. Do you remember the day when you checked off the heterosexual box?
You got that backwards, church should no longer be involved in marriage. I know it was originally a religious thing, but times change and so should that.
Marriage was not originally a religious thing, they stole that too.
The issue is not what God would condemn, but what God would choose for us as the best choice for us.
Would a loving God choose "love" between a man and multiple female partners/spouses as the best choice, the one to aspire to, do you think?
Would a loving God condemn "love" between a man and a young teenage boy?
Absent a religious perspective based on a few thousand years of social experimentation and testing, how does one decide which "love" should be pursued, or tolerated, or condemned?
We use measures such as informed consent and harm to determine when it is or isn't any of society's business. Imperfect though these measures may be, they are assailable by reason.
The love between a man and a teenage boy need not be condemned, but there is cause for society to show some concern. Loving individuals may worry that a teen is too susceptible to coercion and that the nature of the relationship is abusive.
In terms of polyamory, I don't have a strong reason to object to the practice itself provided it is egalitarian (that is to say women can have multiple males partners or there can be multiple males and females in the union) and all parties are fully encouraged to enter and remain in the union only of their own volition. If they are all consenting participants who cause me or society no tangible harm, why should I concern myself with their love?