Communists compete with religion for total control over the life of the individual.  Instead of the church, the Party defines morality.  What the Communists tended not to do was murder and torture as a means of promoting atheism, unlike religious regimes.  The Bolsheviks confiscated religious property and wealth, and Stalin blew up a stunningly beautiful cathedral, but after his regime, religious practices were more or less tolerated.  In general, the Communist hierarchy behaved like conservative ideologues in the US.  That is, they sought to use government power to promote their beliefs about religion, and they were puritanical to a fault.

Finally a thread like this where I can sit on the sidelines.  :)   

In a truly Marxist society, such insolence would not be tolerated.  You would be compelled to stand in front of your comrades and confess your errors so that the truth would be exposed.  And then your popcorn would be confiscated and handed out to the audience in precisely equal portions.

lol, you got it.  You guys are a hoot.  :)

Every society/government built on something has to be somewhat dogmatic. When it comes to religion, it is borderline impossible it disassociate it with peoples lives.

George Washington, the religious zealot.   

Actually, atheists are on par, if not greater than, the religious regimes when it comes to murder and torture to promote atheism.

I visited the Soviet Union when the Cold War was at its peak, and I met with religious people living there.  They felt oppressed, but they did not fear torture and murder because of their religious beliefs.  In modern Russia, Communism is largely an anachronism.  The Orthodox Church has considerable power and influence with the government.  But the murders and intimidation have once again started up.  It wasn't atheism that motivated Stalin's and Pol Pot's atrocities, and it isn't atheism that motivates Putin's excesses. 

Sorry if that sounded like ranting.

No offense taken.  We all rant in these forums.

Every society/government built on something has to be somewhat dogmatic.

No it doesn't.  For example, our Constitution contains nothing written in stone.  It contains processes under which we can even amend and change it.

When it comes to religion, it is borderline impossible it disassociate it with peoples lives.

But it is very possible to have a secular government that takes no official religious positions.

"What the Communists tended not to do was murder and torture as a means of promoting atheism, unlike religious regimes."

Actually, atheists are on par, if not greater than, the religious regimes when it comes to murder and torture to promote atheism.

I'm going to disagree with Copernicus a bit here.  Religious regimes did not tend to murder and torture as a means of promoting theism, either.

Governments that are set up to be less dogmatic but promoting free inquiry instead tend to be much better than those who aren't.  Such governments also tend to be non-dogmatic in positions regarding theism.

It is a shame that they dont seem to realize that religion can, and should, play a part in public life, government should not be the instrument in doing so.

<applause> <applause>

Nothing in atheism to stop them, either.

Nor in theism.  Only in specific religions ethical stances or specific ethical stances under atheism.

"It wasn't atheism that motivated Stalin's and Pol Pot's atrocities, and it isn't atheism that motivates Putin's excesses."

Nothing in atheism to stop them, either.

Nothing in theism, either.  A god might well not care about human behavior or might even root for nasty behavior.  The only reason our gods care about our behavior is that we imagine them to share our feelings and attitudes about human society.  So morality is tacked on at the end of of the intellectual argument over God's existence, as if there were some rational connection.

Dang it.  Back to the popcorn. 

The church elders feel that popcorn is spiritually unclean.  It is a sin against God, because the butter and salt will shorten your lifespan.  A true Christian would not risk what God has so graciously entrusted to his keeping.  From now on, eat only unbuttered, unsalted popcorn, or risk being roasted, buttered, and salted for eternity by a hungry Satan.

Regarding Ben's slight disagreement with me:  Religious regimes did not tend to murder and torture as a means of promoting theism, either. Since there is usually a scarcity of admitted atheists in theocratically-dominated countries, the murder and torture is usually devoted to the promotion of doctrinal positions rather than theism per se.  There was behavior under Stalin that approached or exceeded what happened under the Spanish Inquisition and similar religiously-inspired waves of terror.  But Stalin seldom had people thrown in jail just for being believers.  He had both the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral and the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow dynamited in order to put terror and despair in the hearts of Christians.  (Both have since been beautifully restored.)  That was equivalent to the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas by the Taliban.  But Stalin's totalitarianism tended to have little to do with atheism, unlike the oppression of the Taliban.  The Taliban had people murdered and tortured for their religious transgressions, not just to solidify their grip on the country.  They would kill people charged with atheism no matter how docile they might otherwise behave.  Stalin did it only to solidify his hold on power, not to enforce his views on the nonexistence of God.  As long as Christians were docile, he really didn't care.

"Christian theism in particular would include a specific religion's ethical stance."

Thank you for that.

Perhaps we could clear things up into the future, then, by pointing out that by 'theism' Christians specifically mean 'Christian theism.'  For future reference, I think it is safe to say that unless clarified otherwise, whenever a Christian uses the word 'theism' it is self-evident that they mean 'Christian theism.'

Not that I wholly agree, given my arguments above.  Like I said, Aristotle had a 'mere theism' pov and that played a large part of his derived ethical system.  Aquinas latched onto Aristotle quite a bit.  His summas probably emphasize Aristotle's 'mere theism' arguments a little too much... and Aquinas felt no hesitation in drawing ethical principles, either.

But anyway, this is a Christian forum where Christians are the primary theists.  I think its safe to say that this is what we mean by 'theism.'  And yes, the definition of God as Christians understand him will have direct ontological consequences that touch on ethics.

I see no reason for not using the word 'theism.'  It is tried and true, and for more than a thousand years in western civilization has basically simply meant theism as understood by Christians.  We don't need another term.  I'm simply pointing out the context of the forum you are contributing to.

If you are asking me that question in order to justify your contention that there exists some version of 'theism' which is amoral, I'm not sure that it is necessary.

If you and Cop are using theism in this other sense, I'd simply ask why?  don't you know this is a Christian forum?

In short, in Christian theism- a God that sustains all reality as we know it but is not exhausted by it either (both transcendent and immanent) it follows that nothing exists apart from his will, and from there it follows that in some way, everything has value.

Settle down there partner.  You seemed to have missed the point.

I don't care if there is a version of theism which allows you to retort to my statement that there is nothing in atheism to prevent Stalin's purge that there is nothing in theism, either.  You directed that retort to me, a Christian, as if I would be arguing for anything other than the Christian definition.

Be that as it may, even your stated definition works, as a 'creator and ruler of the universe' will have the ethical consequences that I pointed out.