R.I.P. Skinbook... apparently

In the latest development concerning former naturist/nudist social sites on Ning, at least one of the sites I was a member of has become a casualty. Skinbook, arguably the most popular of Ning’s nudist sites, has now closed.

You will remember from this posting that Ning decided to prohibit all nudity from its sites, including those run by and for naturists and nudists. There were various nudist sites on Ning, but those I was most familiar with were Skinbook, Bare Friends International (BFI) and Free Range Nudists (since renamed Free Range Naturists, or FRN). The blanket prohibition of nudity did not sit well with any of these sites, but the attempts at finding solutions were varied.

There was already talk some months before about BFI moving away from Ning due to problems with Ning administration, and the anti-nudity rule seems to have been the final impetus needed to put the plan in action. The site can now be found at a new address.

FRN tried first going the diaspora route with members joining groups on MySpace, Facebook, Yahoo, Flickr, Google, etc., and even creating an FRN group on Skinbook itself. The reasoning was that even if those groups didn’t allow nudity, at least the risk of seeing everything disappear due to an overzealous worker at Ning could be compensated for. Most recently, they found a new home on the elgg system, which does allow nudity, and everything is being centralised there.

Skinbook is the only one that promised a seamless transition to another site. It did so after first seeking an exemption from Ning for its group. I find it hard to believe they would actually make such a request given Ning’s final word on the matter. However, they did say that some art groups were in the same boat as some of the portraits exhibited were nudes. I don’t know what happened to the art groups, but Skinbook did not get any special treatment, at least not in this regard.

When it was clear they could not stay on Ning and keep nude pictures, they tried to transfer to another platform. The first try was at grou.ps. They do seem to have tried hard at making it work for quite some time. However, they eventually found it too complex and opted for grouply instead. But many complaints came from the membership regarding spam and other problems at grouply. At least, this is what they said.

The most recent attempt was to start from scratch at www.theskinbook.net and have everyone register all over again. This apparently caused other problems, and the plug was finally pulled for good, with some regret but especially with a certain amount of bitterness on the part of Site administrator Karl Maddocks.

Maddocks sent a message announcing the demise of Skinbook that was supposed to reach all members. I never received it, and I’m apparently not the only one. But the letter was reprinted on various nudist websites and blogs. Here is what he had to say:

     "A message to all members of www.theskinbook.net:

     "It is with much regret that I have come to the decision to bring Skinbook to an end.

     "After all the effort (and money) we have put into saving the Skinbook network; the complaining, negativity, abuse and general lack of support we have received (sic) from our users has been quite frankly, disgusting...

     "I am no longer prepared to provide the Skinbook network to any members past or present.

     "As much as we have attempted over the past couple of years to bring together the naturist community and give the naturist lifestyle a positive public image, the treatment of my team here at Skinbook has finally made it clear (to myself at least) why this lifestyle is both fragmented from within and ostracized from without.

     "What you take this to mean is up to you to speculate individually.

     "For me this revelation doesn't require an explination (sic), it requires merely a reaction; my reaction being that from now on I see fit only to completely distance myself from this lifestyle (from both a philosophical and physical stand point) and most certainly from ANY medium which serves to promote it.

     "Good luck in your quests to find unity within your chosen lifestyle... you need it!

     "Karl Maddocks”

He then added a post scriptum in which he adds that he and his team retain all rights to the Skinbook name, logo and any other associated media.

See also, among others, this posting.

Criticising religion

Why not just stand up for secularism? This was the theme of a talk by Atheist Alliance International’s Russel Blackford, which can be accessed on the net from embiggenbooks.com. The question asks why we should criticise religion rather than just promote the benefits of secularism.

The short answer given by Blackford is that if religion is not challenged in society, there will be no traction for ideas of freedom of religion, which includes freedom from religion. If everyone just accepts that religion has epistemic and moral authority, it may be wondered, then, why we should ever be free from it. Many religious people and organisations refuse to accept the logic of secularism, that it’s not okay for them to try to convince government to impose their dogmas. History has shown that for our safety from religion, we must be able to criticise it. Blackford then delves into the past to illustrate his point.

Over time, Christianity went from being a persecuted religion to a persecuting one, destroying Jewish synagogues and pagan temples, and attacking any type of Christianity that did not conform to orthodoxy. Eventually, Martin Luther’s actions lead to a protestant movement that the orthodoxy could not put down. Millions died throughout Europe in religious wars between Protestants and Catholics, including millions in France alone during the 30 Years War.

The religious connection was a huge part of what was happening on the European political scene, even if the wars were not religious per se. Part of the reason the Acadians were deported starting in 1755 was they wouldn’t abandon Catholicism, which made them suspect in the eyes of British authorities.

By the 17th century, philosophers were seriously examining the matter of state and religion. In 1689, John Locke noted that much of the struggle is caused by religion trying to take over civil power. If civil government could simply tolerate competing churches and stick to overseeing secular matters, religion would have to fall back. There would have to be no persecuting of religions, either by the State or by rival sects. The mission of the churches is to save souls for the afterlife. The State’s mission is to ensure civil order in this world and avoid choosing which religion is “correct.”

Since 1689, much lip service has been given to this idea. But it’s never been fully accepted in ANY society, not even in that bastion of church-state separation, the U.S.A. Locke himself wasn’t ready to follow his statement to its logical conclusion. For example, he believed it was acceptable to persecute atheists, Catholics and Muslims. Atheists, he argued, don’t believe in an afterlife and therefore can’t be expected to be trusted when taking an oath. Catholics are seditious as their first loyalty is to the Vatican. And a Muslim’s first loyalty is to the Ottoman Empire. Locke didn’t realise that these people could be very good citizens of the country where they live. (He also didn’t realise that gays and lesbians could be good citizens even though they practised a type of sexuality that was different from the one he espoused.)

Still, the general idea had been planted. There should be NO religious persecution carried out or tolerated by the State. Any government measure against religion must exist only if there is a secular justification for it, and no religion-inspired law or government policy should exist if there is no secular justification for it. The State should deal only with life, health, property and other things of this world.

Churches say they support the separation of Church and State, but that doesn’t mean they think the State shouldn’t act for non-religious reasons only. The Vatican still thinks the State should enforce “moral law,” it’s version, of course. Churches still expect the State to impose their morality, which they call “natural law.”

Therefore, we must be able to criticise religion in order to make sure the State continues to deal only with things of this world. Promoting secularisation isn’t enough. If no one actively opposes religion, freedom of and from religion has no foundation. It must be legitimate to oppose religion itself.

If a claim of moral authority is made by a church, we must be able to challenge it and be a voice of disbelief. As Blackford asks, where does the church get its authority? Should it truly have that aura of authority? Are the religious authorities truly moral experts?

Religious Violence

The goal of the previous post was to clearly show that not all atheists are communists and not all communists are atheists, even if they are Marxists. This is now clear, at least in my own mind.

Many people who want to speak of the “evils” of atheism often point to former Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin and the deaths of millions caused by his actions. Often this is because religious people believe only atheists could cause death on such an enormous scale, and Stalin was undoubtedly an atheist. But were the deaths caused by Stalin truly the result of hostility toward religion? I think we have to distinguish between atrocities committed by atheists and those committed due to atheism. Let’s define a few terms first.

Theism and State Theism are not the same. Theism is a position taken on matters of religion and society by a person or by a like-minded group of people according to which the existence of at least one supreme and supernatural being is accepted as fact, notwithstanding lack of objective evidence for the existence of any such being. State Theism is the policy of an authoritarian government which encourages the populace to adhere to a particular brand of religion, usually called the State religion, and discouraging belief in any other brand of religion as well as discouraging non-belief in any religious system whatsoever. This can manifest itself in the persecution of those who will not adhere to the state religion, especially if they prove to be a thorn in the government’s side.

Likewise, Atheism and State Atheism are not the same. Atheism is a position taken on matters of religion and society by a person or by a like-minded group of people according to which the existence of a supreme and supernatural being has not been proven and is therefore of no consequence in one’s daily life. State Atheism is the policy of an authoritarian government which encourages non-religion in the populace and discourages religious belief, often to the point of persecuting religious believers, especially if they prove to be a thorn in the government’s side.

Therefore, if we are to attribute killings to religion, the killings must have been either:

• motivated by hatred toward a religion or a particular religious group (Anglican vs. Catholic; Hindu vs. Muslim, etc.);
• motivated by religious belief (Thou shalt slay the infidel); or
• committed by or ordered by the State as a measure of persecution against people of a religious belief other than the one approved by the State (The Iranian government against the Baha’i).

Likewise, if we are to attribute killings to atheism, the killings have been either:

• committed by an atheist who is motivated by hatred toward religion in general (I’m gonna get even with those “/$%?& religionists);
• motivated by atheistic beliefs (whatever that may be); or
• committed by or ordered by the State as a measure of persecution against people of religious belief in general or of a particular religious belief.

Traditionally, religious people and authorities have committed their atrocities against those who are non-religious and those whose religion is different from theirs. Therefore, the atheistic equivalent would be against those who are religious and those whose atheism is at odds with the one practiced by the ones committing the atrocities.

We must make the distinction between purges against religious people and groups due to their religious beliefs and activities, and the deaths caused, for example, by a failed ideological attempt to reorganise a nation’s agricultural system, leading to widespread famine. There is no doubt Stalin persecuted people for their religious views, but I doubt this would account for the epitome of his atrocities, the famine in the Ukraine. Stalin wanted to force the collectivisation of farms there. The religious beliefs of his victims were probably not the first thing that came to his mind. In fact, there is reason to believe that the Russian Orthodox Church was revived during his time to stoke the flame of nationalism and show the world that the USSR was indeed a bastion of freedom of religion. On the first count at least, Stalin showed himself to not be a Marxist since the movement is one which discourages nationalism.

Therefore, pointing to Stalin’s numbers as proof that atheism has killed more people than religion is problematic at best. The millions killed through religious feuding are much easier to account for.

Imagine no possessions

One of the websites I visit regularly had an impromptu debate concerning atheists and religionists, mostly Christians. It started with a “This should be posted to a group rather than the general Forum” type of statement, but eventually became a “stop picking on us” and “you think you’re so smart” fest of comments. I published a reaction to one piece there in my site blog. As I was contemplating whether to publish it here, I realised that often the terms debated aren’t properly defined. As I tried to define them for my own purposes, I discovered my knowledge wasn’t quite up to par. I don’t mind that someone disagrees with me. But, when I’m blatantly wrong on something I should know, it really bothers me.

In this case, the terms were atheist and communist. Not all atheists are communists, but it’s always assumed that all communists are atheists. I certainly assumed as much before examining the matter more closely. In its simplest form, communism simply means a classless and stateless society in which all property is communally owned. In its modern Marxist manifestation, communism has not been stateless, and property, or at least the means for the production of goods and wealth, was owned by the State. While it could be argued the State is the People, the dictatorial nature of the governments would indicate otherwise.

Societies organised according to communist principles have existed since the earliest times. Communist theorist Karl Marx himself saw the hunter and gatherer society as communistic. Early Christians are said to have lived in such a way that all was shared, and other religious groups have also lived according to communal ownership of land and other resources.

Communist thought of a more modern bent can be traced back to Thomas More, who wrote about common ownership of property in his treatise Utopia in 1516. In the 18th century, communism began to take on a dimension of political doctrine following the French Revolution. Non-state-sponsored communistic communities continued to be formed, but while those that came before had been formed mainly for religious reasons, those of the 19th century were based mainly on social reform.

By the late 19th century, Friedrich Engels had made enough of an impression on Karl Marx that he, too, became a communist. Marx and Engels were convinced that just as feudalism had given way to capitalism, capitalism would give way to communism, where the means of production would be owned by all, and all would benefit from the production. All that was needed was for the factory workers and other members of the oppressed class to unite and throw off their shackles.

Marx said religion is the opiate of the masses, or opium of the People, depending on how you wish to translate the original German. His pronouncements on religion aren’t quite as stark in The Communist Manifesto, which he coauthored with Engels and published in 1848. I’ve gone through the Manifesto quickly, perhaps too quickly. But my impression is the Manifesto doesn’t actually preach the ousting of religion, though it is critical of it. Rather, it sees religion as a tool of the ruling class to lull people into a state of complacency, and calls for the people to be free from religion. It’s hard to tell whether Marx and Engels believe people will have to free themselves of religion before the communist revolution or that religion will simply cease to exist once the classless society has been established. But communism, as described in the Manifesto, rather than calling for the end of religion, is predicting its eventual demise or at least the end of its hold over the masses. Atheism wasn’t supposed to be imposed. It was to occur more or less naturally at a certain stage of the working class struggle against the ruling class.

In that sense, I wonder if the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia is even close to what Marx and Engels envisioned. The ordinary workers were supposed to take power from the ruling class. In the end, one ruling class was replaced by a different ruling class. While this had been more or less anticipated, Marx and Engels believed the end of classes would bring about the end of political power per se. Obviously, this never happened.

That may be Marxist communism’s Achilles heel. Communism needs a ruling class to take down. But the result is supposed to be a society without class. As long as there must be a State, there will always be a ruling class, an institution called government, though its members may be there only temporary.

Instead of a traditional revolution, it may be better for the working class to eventually reach economic autonomy through a quiet revolution already in progress. As more and more people can work from home through a computer, and perhaps just a cell phone, it may be starting to happen. In the end, we may not have common property of all production resources, but if they’re widely available at a fair price, even the poorest of wage-earners may win that struggle.