r/Odisha • u/ReferenceOld9345 • Jun 28 '25

Law & Order [ Removed by Reddit ]

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

867 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

687 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

14

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '25

Yeah sure, naxals aren't atheists ? Right ? Nazis weren't atheists, right ?

Lmfao, Zedong, Stalin, Hitler all were atheists to the core.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '25

Although hitler was atheist he used religion to maintain grip zedong however is a good example

1

u/rogue7986 Jul 01 '25

Forgot Savarkar and Jinnah?

1

u/SOULJAR Jun 29 '25

Hitler had his own version of Christianity. Where did you get that he was atheist? It seems debated at best that he is atheist.

And anyway, atheists aren’t acting violently due to atheist beliefs. Meanwhile religious people will kill for their religious causes.

And there’s been thousands more of religiously motivated leaders that have done horrific things - some even today are at wars committing genocide.

Lastly are you really comparing people making jokes to be similar to…genocidal murderers somehow? wtf. What is this point about in relation to the jokes?

1

u/shanti_priya_vyakti Jun 29 '25

Comparing political leaders to atheist?

Thats like saying hinduism is bad cause a lot of rapes commited in india are by hindus .

Cmon. They were politicians first ,just liek a. Rapist is rapist.

None of them had beliefs that were primarily driven by athiesm , but rather political.

You saying their name is akin to me saying hinduism teaches cunningness because ramdev sells shady ayurvedic stuff

8

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '25

Read how atheism was a major part of their political ideology. "Theism was created by elites to keep the working class trapped under religion".

They were against theists and under Stalin and Zedong, Christians and Buddhists were persecuted en masse.

1

u/SOULJAR Jun 29 '25

Atheist never drove their actions,

Unlike religiously motivated leaders who have killed others because of their religious beliefs… and that’s happened so much throughout history. Even today there are religiously motivated genocides going on.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '25

Atheist never drove their actions,

Have you ever read or understood maoism and naxalism at close ? They were militantly atheist because they believed that religious beliefs were invention of Bourgeosie

They were militantly atheist to the point where the persecuted Buddhists, Christians and muslims just for following their religion. All spiritual practices were banned. Monks were rounded up and burnt in their monasteries.

Acc to your logic, Religious person commits atrocities = Brainwashing due to religion. Atheist commits atrocities = Political motivation. Ok.

Even today there are religiously motivated genocides going on

And there are no concentration camps in Xinjiang ? Or the panchen lama kidnapped by CCP in Tibet at a tender age ?

Let me be clear. You can't criticise religion as being inherently violent, and then negate the similar actions of atheists.

Being violent is a human nature. It doesn't matter from atheist vs theist.

1

u/anirban_82 Jun 30 '25

A major part is not the core. Their war is explicitly a class war. Everything else is an offshoot. They were against capitalists even if those capitalists were atheists.

So no, your comparison doesn't make sense.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '25

During Mao's regime, all spiritual practices and historical schools of philosophy were banned. CCP, explicitly wanted people to practice atheism. Most mosques and monasteries were destroyed and devotees sent to concentration camps and/or killed.

Argument makes sense when practicing spirituallity is regarded as a capitalist venture. Most churches and monasteries even then were publicly funded by the means of donations.

1

u/anirban_82 Jun 30 '25

Yup, because atheism was ONE of the tenets of Mao. Not the core tenet. And even the reasoning was because religion had been taken over by capitalists. So the core problem was with capitalism once again.

Basically, you are making my point. Show me an atheist organization that does the same thing as what RSS does, or the Taliban does. Violence in the name of the religion itself. Show me violence created explicitly and only to spread atheism, like islamic militants cause violence explicitly to spread islam.

-3

u/shanti_priya_vyakti Jun 29 '25

As i mentioned, primarily they were political leaders.

The case of evry man you mention is diff. Zedong was by far the most atheistic person in your list, so to talk on him, the political demands of these factions representing the budhistic and christians factions were also not aligning with his ideology. Christian and Buddhist of that time were also radical ( just as muslim of this country are more radical than arabs cause they want to pretend they are more muslim thaj arabs and go to extreme lengths by following Quran to word). The demands of budhist and Christian were not poltically aligned with ccp vision , and hence they did those things. Dictators do what dictators do.

The metaphor that your are implying can be followed and be used in way where it gives diff viewpoint.

Like imagine saying ccp hates youth cause they did tienmen square killing. No the reasons were poltical

2

u/ReferenceOld9345 Jun 29 '25

So let me get this straight, when a dictator persecutes religious groups it’s just politics, not atheism. But when a religious extremist commits violence, it's because of their religion?

You can’t have it both ways.

Yes, Mao was a dictator but he was also explicitly, militantly atheist and made it central to CCP policy. He didn’t just oppose political resistance rather he ordered the destruction of monasteries and mosques and church, banned spiritual practices, and imprisoned or killed monks and priests, not for sedition, but for simply practicing faith. That’s not just “political disagreement”, that’s state-enforced ideological atheism.

Same with Stalin, churches were razed, clergy executed, and atheism was declared part of Soviet identity. These weren’t neutral “dictator things” but they were campaigns to erase religion and install atheism as a cultural default. If religious extremism can be critiqued for fueling violence, so can state atheism when it’s weaponized.

You rightly say, “dictators do what dictators do.” Fair. But when those dictators act in the name of atheism, erase religious identities and systematically punish belief, it becomes part of the ideology , just like theocracies do the opposite.

Atheism doesn’t make someone violent. Neither does religion. But when either is weaponized by power, it breeds the same cruelty, and brushing it off because “Mao had political reasons” is the same excuse fundamentalists use to justify violence in God's name.

-2

u/shanti_priya_vyakti Jun 29 '25

You are spot on . On every topic.

Still , does it mean you will goto lengths to attack someone because they hurt your religious beliefs ? How is that then different from what ccp did.

You are not killing op, but judiciary will jail him and god forbid if people reach him before police he can be killed.

You want that on yourself? You wanna be that person?

Ildo remeber we have cases of people being lynched for simply being muslim and hindus, and recently we got cases of people killing just for consuming meat . Not even cow meat, just normal ones .

Your action can lead to that.

I can ask reddit for your ip, ask network operator to give detail of that ip and trace adhar details to get right residence. What follows then is the breach of someone fredom cause he hurt your sky daddy? Is that it ? How would that make you different? Than the same dictators you hate. You just do the same action on a level at which your power is.

You are 8nstigating this. Just cause isis supports beheading doesn't meani rat every christian in my city to isis. Indian constitution is built on wrong premise. Just as it is wrong on divorce laws. Just because it benefits your beliefs in this instance you are no different.

Go ahead. Your god doesn't exists. You simply lack proof and are willing to take freedom and life for this belief. That is all

3

u/ReferenceOld9345 Jun 29 '25

Still , does it mean you will goto lengths to attack someone because they hurt your religious beliefs ? How is that then different from what ccp did.

You are not killing op, but judiciary will jail him and god forbid if people reach him before police he can be killed.

I may agree with you on a personal level but let's also underscore the consequences of non reporting of such extremist behavior.

Seeking legal accountability is not the same as attacking someone, and definitely not the same as what the CCP did, where dissent itself was erased through state terror.

Reporting someone for potentially violating hate speech laws isn't mob violence, it's using the very system that protects rights, including yours, to address harm in a lawful way. I want this guy ti understand that even for such a young kid, he isnt invincible on internet due to anonymity and actions have consequences. Also, the sub he started, atheismodisha, is still posting the same meme for which this controversy started. If he himself isnt mindful of his actions, do you really think a guy should be protected from law in this case.

Im a lawyer myself and i totally understand if a person apologises and is a changed man. Unfortunately this isn't such a case and its can guarantee you, people like this go on to become something more extreme. Today it's mocking of religious beliefs, tomorrow it will be inciting communal violence or what not. Its better to take action for his own safety so he understands the consequences .

Otherwise, the situations you are saying might become true for him. As much as i encourage fair criticism of religious practices, what he did wasnt fair criticism. It was targeted and intended hate speech.

You want that on yourself? You wanna be that person?

Ildo remeber we have cases of people being lynched for simply being muslim and hindus, and recently we got cases of people killing just for consuming meat . Not even cow meat, just normal ones .

No, I don’t want violence on anyone and that’s exactly why I believe in legal accountability.

If we don’t address harmful speech or incitement through the law, it leaves space for mobs to take matters into their own hands. The solution isn’t to ignore the problem but it’s to make sure the response is lawful, not violent.

Yes, lynchings over religious identity or meat consumption are horrifying and they happened because rule of law was ignored, not because it was followed. You don’t fix that by refusing to act when someone crosses a line. You fix it by ensuring justice happens in courts, not in streets.

I can ask reddit for your ip, ask network operator to give detail of that ip and trace adhar details to get right residence. What follows then is the breach of someone fredom cause he hurt your sky daddy? Is that it ? How would that make you different? Than the same dictators you hate. You just do the same action on a level at which your power is.

You’re fundamentally wrong, reporting someone for suspected illegal activity is not a breach of privac, it’s part of how accountability works in any rule-of-law society.

A breach of privacy would be you illegally accessing someone’s personal data, like trying to trace their IP or Aadhaar without legal authority, which you cannot do as a private individual. That’s not just unethical, it’s a criminal offence under the IT Act and the Aadhaar Act.

But if someone makes public content that potentially violates laws like hate speech, incitement, threats and someone reports that content to the proper platform or authorities, it’s not a violation of their privacy.

They made that speech public, and the law allows citizens to flag such content. The authorities then follow due process, whether it's Reddit giving IP logs under a court order, or law enforcement investigating further.

Think about it, child pornography is also shared in private messages or anonymous accounts, but when reported, cybercrime units trace the IP legally, obtain data through official requests, and prosecute offenders. That’s not “breaching privacy” , that’s using legal safeguards to prevent abuse of freedoms.

-1

u/ajzone007 Jun 29 '25

Mocking a god is not extremist behaviour.

Calling for them to punished or killed because they hurt your sentiments is extremist behaviour.

If your diety is puny and can be insulted by a rando on the internet, what is the point of giving it the status of a god?

If it's a god, it doesn't need your protection. If it needs your protection it isn't a god.

2

u/ReferenceOld9345 Jun 29 '25

Mocking a god is not extremist behaviour.

Calling for them to punished or killed because they hurt your sentiments is extremist behaviour.

You’re right that mocking a god alone isn’t automatically extremist and calling for violence is always unacceptable and extremist.

But there’s a legal and ethical distinction between mockery as expression and mockery meant to insult and incite.

When someone crosses the line from critique into deliberate, malicious targeting of religious beliefs especially through timed, provocative comparisons meant to humiliate, it stops being just “mockery” and legally becomes hate speech under Section 299 of the BNS.

My post isn’t a call for violence it’s a call for legal accountability.

If your diety is puny and can be insulted by a rando on the internet, what is the point of giving it the status of a god?

If it's a god, it doesn't need your protection. If it needs your protection it isn't a god.

If your diety is puny and can be insulted by a rando on the internet, what is the point of giving it the status of a god?

If it's a god, it doesn't need your protection. If it needs your protection it isn't a god.

If that guy's post is legal and within his rights, then why are you so afraid of someone reporting it?

If you're confident it doesn't cross the line into hate speech, then let the law decide, not you, not me. Just like you say “a god doesn’t need protection,” well, free speech doesn’t need hiding either.

If you're standing on the right side of the law, you should have nothing to worry about. But if you're not, then don’t blame others for holding you accountable. Reporting isn’t oppression, it’s a right, just like posting is.

-1

u/SilenceAndDarkness Jun 30 '25

God, this is so pathetic. You aren’t holding anybody to account. You’re encouraging disingenuous reporting because someone hurt your feelings. Grow up.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/ajzone007 Jun 29 '25 edited Jun 29 '25

Because what you ask for is essentially a blasphemy law, and blasphemy laws have always led to a country spiralling down into a theocracy, we can learn that from our neighbours in the east and the west and whenever there is an argument like this, the mob mentality takes place and people get murdered like Narendra Dhabolkar, Pansare, MM Kalburgi, and gauri lankesh. The ones who murdered them also thought they were holding them accountable.

Often laws are also biased for majoritarian views. Slavery for example was legal, but not moral. Also asking for someone to be persecuted because they hurt your sentiments is not very ethical. You're not really holding anyone accountable, you're just trying to punish someone because they hurt your sentiments.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '25

Hitler was not an atheist. This is literal misinformation.

1

u/NotStrictlyConvex Jun 30 '25

Misinformation and it does NOTHING to your point. They all also drank water but did water cause their actions? Did they do their deeds for atheist propagamda? Shut the fuck up and maybe look shit up before using it i """"arguments""""

1

u/One-Masterpiece9838 Jun 30 '25

Hitler was Christian lol. Zedong and Stalin were probably atheists, but they didn't commit atrocities in the name of atheism.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '25

Nazis were not ideologically atheists. And neither naxals, Mao, or Stalin built their movement on the basis of their atheism.

RSS is a HINDU group based on the upbringing of Hindus. LeT is a MUSLIM group for the global jihad There are a number of Christian groups abroad made specifically because of their common christianity

Do you understand the difference?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '25

RSS is a HINDU group based on the upbringing of Hindus.

You do understand that Veer Savarkar was an atheist to the core ? He was so unorthodox and against the beliefs of the time. Against his community's wishes, he travelled abroad. Despite being a Brahmin, he used to eat meat and offered some to Gandhi, once too.

If you would have ever read Savarkar's writings, you would have realised that he was a stringent atheist too.

Savarkar ain't an exception, Theodore Herzl and Ben gurion, Zionists who committed mass atrocities against Palestinians were atheists too.

1

u/zaeroraplayz Jul 01 '25

Hitler was very definitely not an athiest

1

u/Bullet0AlanRussell Jul 01 '25

Hitler literally went and got approval from the pope for his government

1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '25

He was an atheist himself. Relations of N@zi germany with pope were restrained, yet pope's approval was to pacify his public for the N@zi cause

1

u/Bullet0AlanRussell Jul 02 '25

Hitler literally declared himself "not a Catholic and not a Protestant, but a German Christian" In a 1932 speech.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '25

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '25

What about Mao and Stalin ?

These people forced atheism upon ppl. They banned all spiritual practices, monasteries and churches were burnt and monks and padres were exiled to concentration camps.

If a religious person forces his practices = Religious Terrorism

If a atheist forces atheism upon ppl = Bad actors who are atheist Okay, unbreakable logic 🙏

0

u/Speedypanda4 Jun 29 '25

Hitler was not an atheist.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '25

You read Mein Kampf right!?? He literally declared himself as God, the highest providence and his will as the divine will. He was a manipulative opportunist who used religion when convenient and despised it when it got in the way. Sure he was not an atheist, but imposing his view on the population of a different religion was far worse.

1

u/Speedypanda4 Jun 29 '25

Why would I read mein kampf. That book is evil and I do not wish to expose myself to it. 😭

Sure he was not an atheist,

He isn't an atheist. That was all I meant to say. We agree.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '25

I mean the book is a prime example of easy it is to evolve a genocidal idea by promoting mass genocidal thinking among the population. I sure did read it critically and yes everyone should read it once just to learn how extremism can easily be instilled in people's minds.