Atheist Sunday Assembly goes worldwide, the future is bright for non-believers

it is not so much what you believe in, but why you believe it.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

No, I didn't miss it.

My lot? Didn't I just tell you that I accept both science and religion and I accept more than one religion?

Yes your lot. You are throwing a fit over the fact that we will have a place to gather that will be free of nonsensical ranting’s of religious zealots. The zealots can still attend but their ranting’s cannot.


Good for you about accepting science and religion so is it the fact that we choose to be different from you that has you riled up?

By my own definition and yours I am more inclusive than you are.

I disagree on that. Check your following statement about Christmas cards. You are far from being inclusive. You just disagree on what should be included is all.

Didn't I say atheists can believe whatever they want?

Well thank you for giving us your permission to believe what we want. That means so much to us.

But why do they insist on removing religion from schools and inserting atheistic beliefs exclusively?

As I know there are no atheistic teachings so just to be clear can you explain exactly what are these atheistic beliefs that you are talking about.

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in deities and as far as I know nothing of the sort is being taught to anyone in school.

I am assuming when you say atheistic beliefs you are referring to science as other zealots have in the past.
Your very first sentence in your post said you accept both science and religion. Was that a lie?

Science does have its place in school and I am sorry if you believe that science is atheistic but it isn’t.


Religion to be clear has no place in public school. Or perhaps you would consider that all religion be taught in school including Hinduism, Buddhism, and the Muslim religion or do you only believe that only Christianity should have a place in school? No thanks like I said religion has no place in public school however there are a multitude of private religious schools to pick from. MY Tax dollars are not meant for teaching children stories started by sheepherders who talked to their invisible friend and called it god.

Please don't preach at me about exclusion when seculars are desperately trying to remove all traces of religion from the public square.... ie removing the Ten Commandments from the Courthouse,

Separation of church and state, deal with it or have the laws changed. That was the courts decission on the matter which means it was unlawfull.

removing Merry Christmas from cards and replacing with "Happy Holidays",

So you have a problem with people having choices. Yes you are all about exclusion yourself. You feel persecuted because you can’t force everyone to say merry Christmas. You arguments are BS Hannityism or FOXism.

removing all traces of Christianity from school textbooks.

Oh wah. Like I said it has no place in public school. Again it is separation of church and state. Just get over it. Teach your kids religion at home or in church but you have no right to force it on others which is what you to be bitching about.

Originally posted by DocHolidaze

A lot of the new groups are starting at pubs and bars etc, it is an organised social meeting place for people who, like me, feel more comfortable with likeminded people. Those who do not believe in fairytales.
I'm amused by the amount of criticism by many here. If you don't like it, don't get involved, pretty simple, and the same reason you won't see me at any religious churches.

I think the problem is that you keep referring to it as a church.


church
[church] Show IPA
noun
1.
a building for public Christian worship.
2.
public worship of God or a religious service in such a building: to attend church regularly.
3.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) the whole body of Christian believers; Christendom.
4.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) any division of this body professing the same creed and acknowledging the same ecclesiastical authority; a Christian denomination: the Methodist Church.
5.
that part of the whole Christian body, or of a particular denomination, belonging to the same city, country, nation, etc.

reply to post by grainofsand


I thought the only real problem atheists had with religious people was the organization, and the preaching. So why would atheists want to create their own organization, and start preaching? It would be completely pointless, and actually work against what they want. If I were an atheist I would not go to some sort of church for atheists, instead I would seek for community elsewhere. I'm not an atheist, but to be honest I rarely go to church myself, I mainly study privately, and don't preach to others (of course I can discuss religious matters with those who initiate such discussion, but I wouldn't start talking about religion with anyone, unless I knew they liked talking about it).

I'm shocked that there are that many Londoners left in London.

Seriously though, I'm Catholic born, now I'm probably more Agnostic than anything else. I have been to church recently and one thing that I love about church, or at least the one local to me, is the feeling of community, the feeling of togetherness, as well as the fact that churches are very beautiful buildings. Everybody is so nice and its a feeling that is lost in London, all the communties are not as they used to be, they are made up of near on 300 different groups all living within themselves. The old fashion community of say your typical eastenders, that's totally gone, or at least taken flight to Essex. So I can see people's need for a sense of community and religion as that common global theme that people can relate to each other from.

I think the problem with an Atheist church is that many Atheists I know are actually quite arrogant people who would like to preach about Atheism as much as any other religion, which to them is to spend time simply bashing organised religion. I would certainly give this a miss, there is something cult like and almost Communist about the whole idea, but don't ask me why, I just get that same shudder when I think about an Atheist church .

Each to their own of course, but that's not for me.

reply to post by solomons path

I think you are confusing accepted scientific principles with Atheism. A better word to use would be "secular", not Atheistic. And I also assume you are talking about "public" schools . . . where not everyone is the same religion to begin with?

No, I am not. Not all scientists are atheist. But generally atheists tend to value scientific materialism. Secular generally means non-religious. Generally speaking, Progressives are pushing secularism in schools. When have you observed religious people promoting secularism in the manner the atheist Progressive types do? Let's be real about this and not play a game of semantics. However, Progressives may play a game of promoting religions other than Christianity just for the agenda of destroying Christianity. As in that school which, in spite of the so-called separation of church and state, decided to make a field trip to a mosque where the students were exposed to Islamic prayer, and it was done under the guise of learning culture.
Also, yoga is promoted in public schools as well, but it is classified as "physical education". I participated in a thread about that where even yoga teachers were promoting it as a non-religious activity, and even if meditative postures are taught, it slips under the radar because they are not teaching vedic scripture. .
So the Progressives do whatever they want in spite of their own rules if it suits their agenda.
Even McGraw Hill says yoga is a spiritual discipline. Note line 22 of this questionnaire

highered.mcgraw-hill.com...

reply to post by Grimpachi

Yes your lot. You are throwing a fit over the fact that we will have a place to gather that will be free of nonsensical ranting’s of religious zealots.

Actually I really don't care if you all want to gather and do your thing, whatever that would be. I am just showing how the agenda is never what it first appears to be, as in secular humanism in the schools, which is the elimination of religion and promoting of secular ideals under the guise of separation of church and state, and it is part of the social engineering done in the name of the almighty State.

Will you be sitting around complaining about how horrible religious people are or discussing the material origins of the Universe, or just meet and greet, shake hands and read poetry? Or will it be a conference on how to remove Merry Christmas from Christmas cards?
And what would be the difference from any other irreligious venue, such as a baseball game or some other pastime?

So you have a problem with people having choices.

No, as I'm not trying to stop people from having Kwanzaa Christmas cards, and I have no problem sending non-religious people Happy Holidays cards either, but it is atheists who throw fits about the Ten Commandments in front of Courthouses and preventing the Nativity scene be put up in places. It is happening no matter how much you try to make it out to be a figment of people's imaginations.

Oh wah. Like I said it has no place in public school. Again it is separation of church and state. Just get over it. Teach your kids religion at home or in church but you have no right to force it on others which is what you to be bitching about.

oh wah, then neither does a field trip to a mosque. Separation of church and state is an agenda and a tool as it is used as an excuse to eliminate Christianity.
The Communists purged the orthodox church after the Bolshevik Revolution. It is an activity of Marxism, not genuine concern for the proper upbringing of children.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Actually I really don't care if you all want to gather and do your thing, whatever that would be. I am just showing how the agenda is never what it first appears to be, as in secular humanism in the schools, which is the elimination of religion and promoting of secular ideals under the guise of separation of church and state, and it is part of the social engineering done in the name of the almighty State.

Public schools are supposed to be secular. They are funded by the government. We live in a secular society not a theocracy, our constitution says there is a separation between church and state. Therefore if you are in a public school the only reason religion should be taught or talked about is if the school has a religious studies course or something. This is not promoting secular humanism its not promoting or respecting any religion.

Will you be sitting around complaining about how horrible religious people are or discussing the material origins of the Universe, or just meet and greet, shake hands and read poetry? Or will it be a conference on how to remove Merry Christmas from Christmas cards?
And what would be the difference from any other irreligious venue, such as a baseball game or some other pastime?

edit on 13-3-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Lol, remove Merry Christmas from Christmas cards? Wouldn't it make more sense to ask if we would like to get rid of Christmas cards altogether?

No, as I'm not trying to stop people from having Kwanzaa Christmas cards, and I have no problem sending non-religious people Happy Holidays cards either, but it is atheists who throw fits about the Ten Commandments in front of Courthouses and preventing the Nativity scene be put up in places. It is happening no matter how much you try to make it out to be a figment of people's imaginations.

Btw, Kwanzaa has nothing to do with Christmas, its a separate holiday so there is no such thing as a Kwanzaa Christmas card. Tax payers often pay for such monuments and not all tax payers are christian the government is also supposed to be separate from religion. So building religious monuments on public government property is wrong.

reply to post by acmpnsfal

Public schools are supposed to be secular

Public schools were not "secular" until the secular humanists demanded it and John Dewey instituted a Statist version of pedagogy.
Actually, according to Antony Sutton, schools replaced phonics with the look-see method which was originally devised for deaf-mutes.

1897. My Pedagogic Creed by John Dewey was published. In it, Dewey states, "I believe that the schools is primarily a social institution.... Examinations are of use only so far as they test the child/s fitness for social life..." [1] Cuddy, page 9.

1921. The Psychological Corporation ("concerned with... promoting the extension of applied psychology....") was founded with "progressive educators" such as G. Stanley Hall, Edward Thorndike and other 'Deweyites' as Directors. [1] Cuddy, page 15.

1948. B.F. Skinner (1972 Humanist of the Year) described a society in which children are reared by the State.

1956. In Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, The Classification of Educational Goals, Professor Bloom wrote, "...a large part of what we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives through challenging the students' fixed beliefs and getting them to discuss issues."[8] See The Mind-Changing Process.

1970. Chester Pierce, Professor of Education and Psychiatry at Harvard tells the Association for Childhood Education International in Denver that "every child in American entering schools at the age of five is insane because he comes to schools with certain allegiances toward our founding father, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity... " Cuddy, page 51.

www.crossroad.to...

our constitution says there is a separation between church and state.

Where? Would you mind quoting me the exact passage in the Constitution where it says that?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by solomons path

 

I think you are confusing accepted scientific principles with Atheism. A better word to use would be "secular", not Atheistic. And I also assume you are talking about "public" schools . . . where not everyone is the same religion to begin with?

No, I am not. Not all scientists are atheist. But generally atheists tend to value scientific materialism. Secular generally means non-religious. Generally speaking, Progressives are pushing secularism in schools. When have you observed religious people promoting secularism in the manner the atheist Progressive types do? Let's be real about this and not play a game of semantics. However, Progressives may play a game of promoting religions other than Christianity just for the agenda of destroying Christianity. As in that school which, in spite of the so-called separation of church and state, decided to make a field trip to a mosque where the students were exposed to Islamic prayer, and it was done under the guise of learning culture.
Also, yoga is promoted in public schools as well, but it is classified as "physical education". I participated in a thread about that where even yoga teachers were promoting it as a non-religious activity, and even if meditative postures are taught, it slips under the radar because they are not teaching vedic scripture. .
So the Progressives do whatever they want in spite of their own rules if it suits their agenda.

edit on 13-3-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

So you go on about semantics, but don't know the difference between Progressives (political ideology) and Atheists (those who lack a belief in a deity)?

Public schools are meant to be secular . . . which means not promoting any religious view. There is no room for religion in math, science, grammar, etc. That is what I am talking about. If you agree with this and don't think creationism or ID, should be taught as actual science, then fine, we are in agreement.

We can also be in agreement that public schools shouldn't be taking field trips to Mosques, just as they shouldn't be to Synagogues or Churches. As an Atheist, if my son's school did this . . . I would definately be a chaperone on that trip!

Disagree fully with yoga. Yoga can be practiced as a means of streching and improving flexiblity without any promotion of the Hindu religion, just as martial arts can be practiced without any promotion of Buddhism, Taoism, or Shintoism. I have no problem with physical fitness instruction that doesn't equally promote an ideology. There are millions you practice yoga everyday without any reference to Vedic scripture, so you are wrong in assuming it must to be taught. If it is . . . that is an issue to take up with the school and how it's taught, but has nothing to do with agenda.

Seems your real issue is with what you term "Progressives", which again is a political ideology and has no bearing on Religion. Just how many Progressive politicians are Atheist? I just give it to you . . . there are two Atheists in the US government . . . 2. Even then, Ernie Chambers is listed as Agnostic and Pete Stark is listed as Unitarian. One is an independent (Chambers) and the other is a Dem (Stark), which makes sense as the Christian Right as long since run the Repubs. All others claim to be some religion and most claim Christian. Seems you also have a little persecution complex going on about the importance placed on your faith, above others.

So, if you don't want to get into a semantics battle . . . stop conflating terms that don't go together or are not representative of a particular movement.

Again, if you don't like public schools being secular . . . don't have your kids attend public schools. However, if you are claiming there is a Christian exculsion or persecution going on . . . sorry that's in your head. I see nothing but Christian promotion in the schools around me, as almost all of my residential area is just that. And, as long as the lesson plans aren't promoting the Christian faith . . . I could care less.

This coming from a Libertarian Atheist.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by acmpnsfal

 

Public schools are supposed to be secular

Public schools were not "secular" until the secular humanists demanded it and John Dewey instituted a Statist version of pedagogy.

As they should have . . . we do not reside in a Theocracy. We live in a secular nation, governed by secular law. Or do you believe in the myth that America was founded as a Christian nation, even though the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence clearly state otherwise?

ETA - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Thomas Jefferson wrote that the First Amendment erected a "wall of separation between church and state" likely borrowing the language from Roger Williams, founder of the First Baptist Church in America and the Colony of Rhode Island, who used the phrase in his 1644 book, The Bloody Tenent of Persecution.[14] James Madison, often regarded as the "Father of the Bill of Rights",[15] also often wrote of the "perfect separation",[16] "line of separation",[17] "strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States",[18] and "total separation of the church from the state".[19] Controversy rages in the United States between those who wish to restrict government involvement with religious institutions and remove religious references from government institutions and property, and those who wish to loosen such prohibitions. Advocates for stronger separation of church and state emphasize the plurality of faiths and non-faiths in the country, and what they see as broad guarantees of the federal Constitution. Their opponents emphasize what they see as the largely Christian heritage and history of the nation (often citing the references to "Nature's God" and the "Creator" of men in the Declaration of Independence). Some more socially conservative Christian sects, such as the Christian Reconstructionist movement, oppose the concept of a "wall of separation" and prefer a closer relationship between church and state.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by acmpnsfal

 

Public schools were not "secular" until the secular humanists demanded it and John Dewey instituted a Statist version of pedagogy.
Actually, according to Antony Sutton, schools replaced phonics with the look-see method which was originally devised for deaf-mutes.

What they were is irrelevant. They are supposed to be secular because they are funded and run by the government.

Where? Would you mind quoting me the exact passage in the Constitution where it says that?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Source

And if thats not good enough for you there is also the Treaty of Tripoli article 11 which says:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Source

reply to post by solomons path


I know the difference between the political ideology of Progressives and the practice of atheism.
I find it interesting however that the more radical of Progressives at the Democratic Convention were rather vocal in their wish to keep God out of the Democrat Party Platform.
Even the Progressive Democratic Socialist Nancy Pelosi is Catholic...that is according to her birth in a Catholic family. Clearly one can be Catholic and still be Progressive. I rather imagine that Ms Pelosi does not believe in God, or she may have a peculiar view that God condones her actions of forcing Congress to pass laws before they can read them and that abortion is a Godly action of mercy towards unwanted children so they don't grow up in poverty. Such is the mindset of Progressives.
It is by far more Progressive types who embrace atheism and Socialism.
Karl Marx promoted elimination of religion and Progressives seem to embrace Socialism.
Still, you are right, one does not necessarily have to be Progressive to be atheist, but by far I would say the majority of atheists would embrace a Progressive worldview.

reply to post by acmpnsfal


So where does it say there is separation of Church and State? You have loosely interpreted this Amendment to fit your worldview.
Do you understand that it means that Congress cannot create a State religion and it cannot prohibit the practice of religion?
Where in all this does it say an alphabet agency created by Congress may abridge the right of public schools to include religious ideas in it's curriculum or prohibit the display of the Ten Commandments anywhere?
Why is it alright to have public school field trips to a mosque then?

And if thats not good enough for you there is also the Treaty of Tripoli article 11 which says:

According to that treaty, it says the US was not founded on Christianity, and I haven't said that it was, but you are using this as a foundation for your supposed separation of church and state. It just says what we all know, that the Constitution allows for freedom of religion.
So I am guessing you think the White House Chaplain is also unConstitutional

chaplain.house.gov...

Maybe you all can gather and talk abouthow to remove the Senate Bible Study.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by solomons path

 

I know the difference between the political ideology of Progressives and the practice of atheism.
I find it interesting however that the more radical of Progressives at the Democratic Convention were rather vocal in their wish to keep God out of the Democrat Party Platform.
Even the Progressive Democratic Socialist Nancy Pelosi is Catholic...that is according to her birth in a Catholic family. Clearly one can be Catholic and still be Progressive. I rather imagine that Ms Pelosi does not believe in God, or she may have a peculiar view that God condones her actions of forcing Congress to pass laws before they can read them and that abortion is a Godly action of mercy towards unwanted children so they don't grow up in poverty. Such is the mindset of Progressives.
It is by far more Progressive types who embrace atheism and Socialism.
Karl Marx promoted elimination of religion and Progressives seem to embrace Socialism.
Still, you are right, one does not necessarily have to be Progressive to be atheist, but by far I would say the majority of atheists would embrace a Progressive worldview.

And yet . . . you still conflate religion and politics. Progressivism is a Collectivist philosophy . . . meaning the rights of the whole outweigh the rights of the individual. So, it does make sense that they would wish to not promote any specific religion, in order to entice as many people as they can to their ideology. Also, makes sense as to why the Christian Right has flocked to the Collectivist philosopy of the Conservative movement who wishes to legislate morality and bring about a psuedo-Theocracy to America.

Communism/Socialism are about Statism . . . all privilages come from the central government. The elimination of religion (ALL religion) is about keeping complete control over their population, as the power of religion takes away from this all-encompasing control.

Again . . . what does any of this have to do with Atheism? And know, it is your assumption that the majority of Atheists would be Progressives. A disbelief in a deity? Nothing. So, again, is your problem with Atheism or politics? There are some, but Atheists are individuals and decide for themselves. As stated I am a Libertarian, which is a ideology rooted in Individualism, not Collectivism.

Nobody is at war with your faith. You seem to be threatened by other faiths, though. Which is ironic since your screen name is a conflation of Hindu/Buddhist (third eye) and Egyptian (eye of Horus) terms. The eye of Horus, btw, was stolen by Christianity and renamed the "Eye of Providence".

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I'll post this again as it cleary states the intent of the two men responsible for drafting the Bill of Rights and The Declaration of Independence.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that the First Amendment erected a "wall of separation between church and state" likely borrowing the language from Roger Williams, founder of the First Baptist Church in America and the Colony of Rhode Island, who used the phrase in his 1644 book, The Bloody Tenent of Persecution.[14] James Madison, often regarded as the "Father of the Bill of Rights",[15] also often wrote of the "perfect separation",[16] "line of separation",[17] "strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States",[18] and "total separation of the church from the state".[19] Controversy rages in the United States between those who wish to restrict government involvement with religious institutions and remove religious references from government institutions and property, and those who wish to loosen such prohibitions. Advocates for stronger separation of church and state emphasize the plurality of faiths and non-faiths in the country, and what they see as broad guarantees of the federal Constitution. Their opponents emphasize what they see as the largely Christian heritage and history of the nation (often citing the references to "Nature's God" and the "Creator" of men in the Declaration of Independence). Some more socially conservative Christian sects, such as the Christian Reconstructionist movement, oppose the concept of a "wall of separation" and prefer a closer relationship between church and state.

reply to post by solomons path


I am not threatened by other faiths. You just came up with that all by yourself. I was practicing yoga at age 17 and took religion and philosophy courses in college. I have already said I embrace the faiths of other religions, but perhaps you missed those earlier posts of mine.
I merely seek to point out the inconsistencies of those who are pushing the secular humanist agenda and the social engineers running the schools and deciding curriculum. I am truly sorry you fail to understand the more poignant things I am bringing to the table here which consists in understanding where much of this stuff originated. I have done my homework on this and you have not.
Again, it is atheists who are threatened by the placement of the Ten Commandments in public places. How incredibly ironic that no one had a problem with it during the first hundred years.

There have been bunches of lawsuits where seculars are demanding the removal of the Ten Commandments from schoolhouses, courthouses and town halls, etc.
So where is really this line between seculars and atheists? As so many atheists are offended by the Ten Commandments.
Clearly someone put monuments to the Ten Commandments in all these places and it is atheists who want them removed.
I think if you are going to be really fair, you should demand the White House take down all that Islamic stuff off the govt website.
But that is not what the Progressives are interested in.

It is atheists who want the Ten Commandments removed. That is what the relevance is, in regards to your question.

Originally posted by jimmiec
So it is basically a YMCA? I think maybe the entire premise of Atheism is lost once they start holding weekly meetings in a church to celebrate not believing. I just can't grasp the point in it. Hey, but whatever floats your boat.

The point of it is that atheism requires as much faith as belief in a religion.
As much proof there is that god is an "imaginary friend for adults" there is no definitive proof either way.
I used to think that at least atheists haven't killed as many as those "god ferrin" types, billions in wars, crusades ,
inquistions, jihads, genocides, etc.
But hey, atheist communists are making up for lost time, you just hardly hear about them due to a leftist media.
So they might as well "meet" every week, like religion addicts they can talk about how its everybody elses fault,
take up "donations" to spread the word, etc.
Which would make me nervous, being agnostic (the only rational point of view) I have enough trouble trying to
stay away from rabid wild eyed religious types who want to kill me because its for my own good.
One more organized group out to "convert" others at the point of a gun( or jet airplane) might be a tad more danger than I can handle.
Besides, the communists already have the market of murderous atheists already covered.
So if you are an atheist with a hankering to kill someone in order to save them, no need to start a new group.
Just join the communist party.
Or, if you don't have the nerve to face your demons directly, try the socialist party

reply to post by grainofsand


Question: If you could choose to have your consciousness live on or continue existing after your physical body dies, would you?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by solomons path

 

I know the difference between the political ideology of Progressives and the practice of atheism.
I find it interesting however that the more radical of Progressives at the Democratic Convention were rather vocal in their wish to keep God out of the Democrat Party Platform.
Even the Progressive Democratic Socialist Nancy Pelosi is Catholic...that is according to her birth in a Catholic family. Clearly one can be Catholic and still be Progressive. I rather imagine that Ms Pelosi does not believe in God, or she may have a peculiar view that God condones her actions of forcing Congress to pass laws before they can read them and that abortion is a Godly action of mercy towards unwanted children so they don't grow up in poverty. Such is the mindset of Progressives.
It is by far more Progressive types who embrace atheism and Socialism.
Karl Marx promoted elimination of religion and Progressives seem to embrace Socialism.
Still, you are right, one does not necessarily have to be Progressive to be atheist, but by far I would say the majority of atheists would embrace a Progressive worldview.

Communists want to do away with religion because they don't want the competition.
Especially a group that has enslaved people so long that they can now enslave people without them even realising that they are "enslaved".
They keep it simple, a fear of death and guilt over sex is the only two things it takes.
They have people so convinced of something that can't be proven that they will die for their "belief".
Maybe the communists are just jealous.
Although a fear of "death" does factor in them getting their "citizens" (slaves) to do what they want.
Except they promise death instead of deliverance from it.