Culture with atheism as center?

[CapelDodger]

I had the good fortune to have classes with a professor at the University of South Carolina, Spartanburg named Joyce Wiley. She is an expert on Iraqi politics and was frequently consulted by the administrations of both Bush Sr. and Clinton. While his uncle did have Nazi political roots going back to the second world war, Saddam modeled his regime on the rule of Stalin. I even remember jokingly asking her if that's why he sported the "Uncle Joe" mustache.

I'd be wary of the Nazi connection. There was an attempted republican coup in '41 against the British-installed Hashemite monarchy; in the spirit of the time, it was represented as being pro-German when it was, in fact, anti-British and Arab-nationalist. The Germans offered some assistance, although little was forthcoming since in truth Hitler wasn't at all comfortable with "lower races" rebelling against their white masters.

The event was a local matter, nothing to do with Nazi ideology or WW2. Beware Eurocentrism . Especially when it dates from Europe's imperial age.

Ba'athism is nationalist and socialist (at its inception, anyway), also secular and republican. It dates from the pre-Ayatollah days when the dominant Arab nationalist philosophy was that Islam was the problem, not the solution. Saddam was never seen in a mosque before the day he realised he'd horribly miscalculated the Kuwait adventure and needed all the help he could get.

Stalin didn't go so far as to appear in churches, but during the Nazi invasion he let up on the Russian Orthodox Church because it was solidly behind the war effort. Germans being their traditional enemy. So I guess Saddam was indeed following where Uncle Joe had trod.

(It is indeed good fortune to have a fine teacher. I had an inspirational History teacher at school, but too soon I channeled my education toward the money-earning subjects. I never lost the interest though - as you may have noticed .)

 

[Foster Zygote]

I'd be wary of the Nazi connection. There was an attempted republican coup in '41 against the British-installed Hashemite monarchy; in the spirit of the time, it was represented as being pro-German when it was, in fact, anti-British and Arab-nationalist. The Germans offered some assistance, although little was forthcoming since in truth Hitler wasn't at all comfortable with "lower races" rebelling against their white masters.

The event was a local matter, nothing to do with Nazi ideology or WW2. Beware Eurocentrism . Especially when it dates from Europe's imperial age.

Ba'athism is nationalist and socialist (at its inception, anyway), also secular and republican. It dates from the pre-Ayatollah days when the dominant Arab nationalist philosophy was that Islam was the problem, not the solution. Saddam was never seen in a mosque before the day he realised he'd horribly miscalculated the Kuwait adventure and needed all the help he could get.

Stalin didn't go so far as to appear in churches, but during the Nazi invasion he let up on the Russian Orthodox Church because it was solidly behind the war effort. Germans being their traditional enemy. So I guess Saddam was indeed following where Uncle Joe had trod.

(It is indeed good fortune to have a fine teacher. I had an inspirational History teacher at school, but too soon I channeled my education toward the money-earning subjects. I never lost the interest though - as you may have noticed .)

Oh I didn't mean to imply that the Ba'ath party had embraced Nazi ideology, it was only a marriage of convenience. Had the Germans won the war I'm sure that their former pawns would have made trouble for them as well. But if I remember correctly (I studied this years ago) the Nazi hatred of the Jews was considered a plus as far as the Ba'athists were concerned.

 

[CapelDodger]

Oh I didn't mean to imply that the Ba'ath party had embraced Nazi ideology, it was only a marriage of convenience. Had the Germans won the war I'm sure that their former pawns would have made trouble for them as well. But if I remember correctly (I studied this years ago) the Nazi hatred of the Jews was considered a plus as far as the Ba'athists were concerned.

Jews weren't an issue - and nor was Palestine, for that matter. Zionism did become an issue during the '41 coup because Hagganah regulars - along with the Jordanian Arab Legion - played a part in the British intervention which saved the Hashemites for post-war slaughter (and secured the oil, of course). It's positively Gordian out there .

The US - not yet in the war - condemned the intervention. In '42 (in the war now) the US occupied Iran, in concert with the Brits and Soviets. The Iranians being potentially pro-German, you see - and to secure the oil.

I note your use of "former pawns" : the Iraqi nationalists were not pawns of the Nazis. Their enemy's enemy was their friend. (Just like the Brits and Soviets - and, later, the US - were friends.) The reasons behind that enmity - ideological or otherwise - were of no concern. It was a local matter, not a projection of European matters onto a crowd of extras.

Be aware of Eurocentrism, and seek it in yourself. Where you find it, pluck it out. The history of Iraq (three Ottoman provinces) is a continuum and can only be understood on that basis. Iraq doesn't just crop up in relation to the Great War, WW2, the Cold War and the "What, no War?" confusion.

 

[Mobyseven]

As to the OP - I think that there are some sub-cultures. (Goths are considered a sub-culture for example, and perhaps punks).

That athiesm is at the centre of the gothic and punk sub-cultures will be news to the many goths and punks who were not even aware that athiesm was a joining requirement.

You aren't being serious, are you?

 

[JetLeg]

I was serious, but goths and punks were examples of subcultures as such, not of atheist subcultures!

 

[Mobyseven]

I was serious, but goths and punks were examples of subcultures as such, not of atheist subcultures!

Ah, righto. Can anyone think of an example? My brain isn't working today.

 

[JetLeg]

My point was that perhaps atheists, or skeptics can be regarded as a sub-culture as goths are. Though they are defined by certain thinking ways, rather than dressing code.

 

[Mobyseven]

Hmmm...I don't really want to get into whether skepticism is a sub-culture here...it's late, and I've got a long day ahead of me. Personally, I wouldn't regard it as such, but as I said, that's a discussion for another day.

Athiesm however is not a sub-culture, in the same way as not being gothic is not a sub-culture.

 

[pchams]

Which religion is the center of current Canadian culture?
Which religion is the center of current Japanese culture?
Which religion is the center of current Lebanese culture?

I could go on.

Well, for Canadian culture I can say, when I grew up here, we had a choice of attending either the Protestant School board, or the Catholic School board.
However, point taken, as I personally support one, and only one publically funded school system.

 

[JetLeg]

Hmmm...I don't really want to get into whether skepticism is a sub-culture here...it's late, and I've got a long day ahead of me. Personally, I wouldn't regard it as such, but as I said, that's a discussion for another day.

Athiesm however is not a sub-culture, in the same way as not being gothic is not a sub-culture.

In a culture where everyone believes in X, I think that not believing in X is sufficient to make the non-believers a subculture. Perhaps you cannot group them all into one philosophic school, but you can group them together as a group in sociology.

 

[Mobyseven]

In a culture where everyone believes in X, I think that not believing in X is sufficient to make the non-believers a subculture. Perhaps you cannot group them all into one philosophic school, but you can group them together as a group in sociology.

That's faulty reasoning. It takes more than a single point of disagreeance with the majority to actually be a sub-culture. Let me ask you, aside from not believing that god exists, what other factors do all atheists have in common that would justify calling them a sub-culture?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

No, I think he's actually right about that one. Wikipedia defines a sub-culture as "a set of people with a set of behaviors and beliefs, culture, which could be distinct or hidden, that differentiate them from the larger culture to which they belong. If the subculture is characterized by a systematic opposition to the dominant culture, then it may be described as a counterculture." Maybe it's shoehorning to a degree, but I think atheists in a religious country fit this definition.

 

[joobz]

That's faulty reasoning. It takes more than a single point of disagreeance with the majority to actually be a sub-culture. Let me ask you, aside from not believing that god exists, what other factors do all atheists have in common that would justify calling them a sub-culture?

They all eat food.
They all have hobbys
They all like stuff they call good, they all hate stuff they call bad.
They all drink the blood of the innocent.

Come on, what don't they have in common.

 

[Mobyseven]

No, I think he's actually right about that one. Wikipedia defines a sub-culture as "a set of people with a set of behaviors and beliefs, culture, which could be distinct or hidden, that differentiate them from the larger culture to which they belong. If the subculture is characterized by a systematic opposition to the dominant culture, then it may be described as a counterculture." Maybe it's shoehorning to a degree, but I think atheists in a religious country fit this definition.

Except I don't think atheism fits that description. What set of behaviours do all atheists have that differentiate them from the larger culture? What beliefs do all atheists hold that differentiate them from the larger culture? Certainly there is one thing that all atheists don't believe in, but what do we believe in that could set us apart from the larger culture? We don't consider people that don't drive cars a counter-culture, even though they are in the minority, so why does not believing in god qualify? I'd also challenge the idea that atheism is any sort of 'systematic opposition' to the dominant culture. As has been pointed out before, atheists aren't an organised group like a religion precisely because there are no common beliefs that unite us - considering a disperate minority of non-believers a 'systematic opposition' to larger culture is a stretch to say the least.

 

[JetLeg]

That's faulty reasoning. It takes more than a single point of disagreeance with the majority to actually be a sub-culture. Let me ask you, aside from not believing that god exists, what other factors do all atheists have in common that would justify calling them a sub-culture?

If you use the word atheist as "lacking a belief in god", then no other factors, and it might not be that important. But, if a group of people has a worldview that denies that supernatural in a culture that affirms it in many ways different ways, then I do think that this criteria is important enough to call them a sub-culture. Or, if you take rationalism - in a society that is opposed to rational thought, in some aspects of its world-view, rationalists have something in common that is not about hobbies, or dressing codes, but about something less visible, but more important.

 

[Mobyseven]

If you use the word atheist as "lacking a belief in god", then no other factors, and it might not be that important. But, if a group of people has a worldview that denies that supernatural in a culture that affirms it in many ways different ways, then I do think that this criteria is important enough to call them a sub-culture. Or, if you take rationalism - in a society that is opposed to rational thought, in some aspects of its world-view, rationalists have something in common that is not about hobbies, or dressing codes, but about something less visible, but more important.

Certainly in an irrational society, rationalists could be considered a sub-culture...it's a bit iffy, quite frankly, but they fit better into the definition of a sub-culture than atheism does.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything in this discussion though, as one can be a rationalist and yet still believe in god.

It doesn't have any bearing on atheist, which still doesn't have any features that would mark it as being a subculture.