I want to ask Atheists here on their opinion regarding as to whether Atheists can and should actively seek to eliminate religious belief from public and private life.
At the moment, I'm looking at the history of communism and am undecided on the issue as the history speaks for itself. My personal opinion is that I am unsure whether religion is compatible with freedom, and consequently suspect religion is incompatible with humanism. On the one hand atheism is part of scientific and moral progress towards greater freedom, whilst on the other it violates long-standing ethical conceptions.
State Atheism, and to a lesser extent militant atheism, self-evidently has some serious human rights implications as it means that individuals lose their "freedom of religion" and that also impacts "freedom of thought" indirectly by the use of state power. Yet at the same time, a lot of our conception of ethics are also derived from religious sources, even in secular systems. So this walks straight into a potentially nihilistic and relativistic realm of thought, which can get pretty ugly.
One thing that strikes me about revolution and its relationship with religion is that the religious authority might be associated with the state authority that a revolutionary would openly challenge. So, in a period of post-revolutionary desire for revenge against former oppressors, the church authorities might very well be judged equally guilty as the state authorities.
Considering the enormous power the church has held over the centuries, as well as holding the hearts and minds of the masses for so long, one might well wonder why the church was not the leading vanguard for revolution in Russia, Europe, or elsewhere in the world. If the Christian church leaders were genuine and true to their beliefs, they would have (and should have) staunchly opposed any form of tyranny, monarchism, greed, aristocracy, inequality, and any other malignant government ruled by terror, oppression, theft, and murder. Instead, they shared power with those malignant governments and told their flocks to be obedient and passive, to "obey their master."
That religion ended up on the post-revolutionary chopping block is not all that surprising, and yes, it did get rather ugly. But all those centuries of oppression and tyranny, aided and abetted by religion, most likely fueled the revolutionaries' anger and desire for retribution against their former oppressors. It's likely that they didn't see a church as a "house of god," but rather, they might have seen it as a fraud, a symbol of tsarist oppression.
There is also a question as whether an Atheist has the right to talk someone out of their beliefs as Atheists cannot be equal to religious people without it, given how often religion takes on an evangelical form whereas atheists are typically individualists. So I'm going to make a distinction between this on an individual level (trying to talk someone out of religion) and on a social level, because they latter will almost certainly imply using the state to achieve an atheist society.
i) can religion be eliminated in society as a whole?
I don't think religion or religious beliefs can be eliminated entirely, although it's certainly possible to reduce religion from an establishment-level institution. One possible way would be to redefine them as political organizations, since that's what they've turned into in practice. This would not necessarily impact any form of free speech or freedom of thought (which clearly imply "freedom of religion" without having to use that exact phrase), but it might have the effect of bringing religious institutions down from their lofty perches and put them in the mud with the rest of us.
ii) should an atheist try to talk a person out of their religious beliefs?
They can try, but why would they? People can believe whatever they want to believe.
The main problem that I see with religion is not so much in the beliefs themselves, but the fact that they're trying to apply contrived, unproven beliefs in real life situations where they're forced to "wing it" out of practical necessity. Strictly speaking, if the beliefs were valid and people in a society were true and faithful to those beliefs, then there would really be no need for any governmental or state authority at all. Even the authority of the church would be irrelevant, if all humans are considered equal as "God's children."
If someone wants to believe in God, no problem. If, however, they wish to submit themselves to a quasi-political institution run and managed by human beings who seek earthly power, authority, and wealth, then they're doing something political and opening themselves up to public questions and debate. I don't really consider it "a private matter" at that point.
iii) should atheists use politics and the state as a way to promote atheism and/or eliminate religion?
I'm not sure on this issue given it's sensitive nature, so all perspectives are welcome.
Well, politics is a dirty business and not for the faint of heart. While many Americans hold to the principle of separation of church and state, it doesn't mean that religion and politics can be totally divorced from each other. If religion allows itself to become a tool to further a political agenda, then they've put themselves on the playing field and willingly subjecting themselves to the consequences for doing so.
I'm probably more agnostic than atheist, although my views tend to overlap, so it's hard for me to pick one or the other word to describe myself. To answer your question, I would say the answer is yes, atheists can use politics and the state, although the big question is how. By invoking the 1st Amendment and the principle of the separation of church and state, the removal of religion from public, taxpayer-supported institutions has proven to be achievable. But that may have come with certain costs in political capital, as atheists might be seen as challenging only the "belief" and not the political institution directly.
