Alvida wrote:
I guess that would depend on who does the dying and who does the killing, and why?
To the question 'Is Democracy worth dying for?'
My answer is ''Yes.''
To have someone worth dying for I accept, but democracy? And all the more ironic and tragic when people die and the result is actually less freedom.
Someone? Well, I would take a bullet for you.

I asked you earlier to define ''Democracy.'' That began with ''a mere word (...).' Of course, I would not expect anyone to be prepared to die for a 'mere word.' But ''Democracy'' is a bit more than that to me.

But to respond to the cases of those dictators specifically, they all have a background that involves religion but clearly their personal experience and outlook made them denounce it, they embraced atheism and that atheism has to be acknowledged in who they were, it cannot be denied simply because of their religious past. But as I say, not that I see religious or atheist belief either way as relevant factors. 

What 'belief' do you associate with atheism? In another reply, you used the word 'doctrine.' There is no doctrine associated with atheism in and of itself - because atheism is not a belief, or a conviction, in the traditional sense of the word. These dictators had to build a religion around themselves to promote (to use your own word) their 'doctrine' and what better way is there for a religion to have its strongest impact when it is the only religion you are allowed to practice, and that what you think is dictated to you?

Hitler was never an atheist, and many close to Staline have stated that he was actually a Deist (and he believed in Jesus Christ). That leaves (potentially) Pol Pot and (more certainly) Mao. But even then, their atheism is not what they relied on to build their communistic-materialistic doctrines, they created religions around that.




  

Sometimes, standing for what you believe means standing alone