Would a "Utopian" atheist nation work in the U.S.?

I don't know who you're talking about. No atheist I've ever conversed with wants a "utopian atheist nation", whatever that means.

Also, authoritarian states like China, USSR, and North Korea persecuted religion because they wanted more centralized power for the state authority. I don't see where any "atheist activist" wants to do the same. 

The term "utopian" is just hyperbole. The song "Imagine" by John Lennon would be an example of imagining an ideal society (utopia).

Those are different nations with different dynamics. Atheists in America in general are going to vary. From atheists who like Christians to those that hate Christians. As far as atheist activists, I would say the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Patheos would be some of the closest organized atheists who would like to see religion removed from society. As far as individuals, Richard Dawkins and Aron Ra among others come to mind.

By the way, there are various claims that evangelicals in America want a theocracy. Do you think that's a valid claim?

From what I got, those individuals and organizations are for strictly enforcing the separation of church and state. I don't think any of them advocate for the elimination of religion

entirely.

We live in a pluralistic society, which represents (in principle) tolerance. Particularly racial and religious tolerance. So it's unlikely any group will advocate any kind of forceful removal of religion.

But we also have limited control of the future. There's no natural law that would prevent Americans and westerners in the future from creating a totalitarian state

That's why I'm a strong advocate of careful analysis of religion (and ethnic, racial, sexual identity) issues

as opposed to loose cannon phrases relating Christianity to Islamic terrorism

early European theocracies, etc.

The Pathos organization seems to believe that religion will end naturally. They seem to have it planned out to where they may have to step in and protect theist's rights as a minority group.

The FFRF go to the extreme in demanding that a statue of Jesus, for the most part hidden from public view, be removed from a ski resort in Montana. That's just one example.

The statue was placed there to honor WWII vets as a sentimental remembrance of a similar statue on a hill in Italy. The idea is that since it's on public land, and promotes a specific religion, it should be removed. (They lost that particular case).

So alongside promoting our American pluralistic values, we all need to honor and value our constitution.

But realistically, anyone complaining about a statue very few people see probably abhors the sight of churches. A street corner church with a marquee inviting people to join them on Sunday is going to probably have a greater impact than a statue at a ski resort.  So, statues on ski resorts, cheerleader signs with scriptures, and nativity scenes on public property is what they go after.

Yes, and these would be an example of fringe groups you referred to.

Most Christians don't want a theocracy. For one, it would mean control by a dominant denomination. And, it's understood by most Christians that Christianity cannot, and should not be forced.

The suggestion that Christians want a theocracy I think is a bit more broad.

And this may be partly due to polls that are taken where someone says they favor (for lack of a better term) a spiritual theocracy where everyone seeks guidance from God independently, and by their own decision.

Which is kind of what the founding fathers were suggesting anyway.

I'd say the likelihood of the US becoming a totalitarian state (defined as a government where the head of state has sole ruling power) is near impossible, considering that the people there have had strong anti-dictatorial sentiments ever since the founding of the nation. 

I haven't heard anyone say this before. Calling terrorism "Islamic" is probably a much more prevalent issue in the US, considering that only a very tiny fraction of Muslims believe in committing such acts.

I haven't heard this argument, either. The only two Christian theocracies that I can think of off the top of my head are the Papal States and the Vatican (basically a reincarnation of the Papal States).

I mean, religion as a whole is declining in North America and Western Europe.

So it was a public ski resort, right?

Doesn't the constitution say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?

Most atheists don't want an 'atheist nation' either. Most atheists tolerate people practicing their religions; they just disagree with it on philosophical terms.

I don't think it is. 

That is fine by atheists, most of whom believe in freedom of religion.

I have never heard any atheist advocating for some society that somehow suppresses people's religions. It's merely a strict separation of church and state, which includes religious iconography on publicly owned lands and mandated prayer at public offices and schools. Beyond that, every atheist I know obviously doesn't care about what you do in your own mind or with your friends. For me the separation should include removal of any special tax considerations, but that's not "you're not allowed to be a Christian and you must live under my rules." This is a well worn straw man argument by Christians with their inexplicable persecution complex. 

By the way, my contention that inspired this thread remains unaddressed: please demonstrate or explain the inherent connection between COMMUNISM and ATHEISM. Atheism is merely a position on the propositions of gods. It has nothing to do with systems of economics. You continue to associate the two in an attempt, as far as I can tell, to imbue revulsion with atheism by blaming it for the atrocities committed by totalitarians, but as usual, you're doing no legwork to connect the two. All I'm asking is why do you think they're associated. As it stands it's yet another straw man argument. Not a single atheist I know has any interest in communism or a utopian society or any restrictions on an individual's rights to be religious. 

The connection however between communism and atheism is that communist regimes have, and still persecute (including the act of execution) individuals because they believe, and won't deny their belief in God. There's nothing any more needed in accepting that fact alone. What the communist persecutors credit their actions to (like in the name of) is irrelevant.

I think you're mixing up the idea of public mind control with removal of religious iconography. Of course they (or yourself) don't care what we think and practice in our privacy. Nothing remotely honorable about that. They simply want religion out of their sight.

 This is obvious since groups like TFFRF go after statues of Jesus on public property, but not statues of Buddha on public property.

I want religion out of my government. All the way out. I am not asking you to practice in secret in your basement. I'm asking you to pay property taxes on your building like everyone else has to. I'm asking you not to try to educate your mythology as fact to my kids.

It's again, very simple, I know it doesn't match with your pre-conceived and apparently worsening persecution complex. No one is out to get you. 

Tell you what. I'll concede this point if you can find me a SINGLE STORY of a US government courthouse trying to put a Buddha statue on their front steps, and atheists or "militant atheists" "anti theist activists mobs" or "unhinged communist throng raping their way through the streets because they don't have Jesus" standing by and doing nothing about it. Please find ONE. Just one. Because you know as well as I do that more than one courthouse has gotten in lawsuits, and almost always lost, for trying to put Christian iconography on public tax payer owned land. And no, Satanists demanding to put up a statue of the goat headed Satan up next to the same Ten Commandments monument, is not the same, simply because Satanists only want to demonstrate the discrimination inherent in the extant monument. 

Because of human nature, a bad person will use whatever means they can for personal, or collective gain. A culturally religious person, one who adheres to their national or ethnic religion may use that religion for their personal or collective benefit. A good religious person will practice the humanitarian directives from their religion's teachings. An

atheist who is a bad person may reason that since there is no higher power to judge them, they cannot be doing wrong, and may commit atrocities without any particular remorse. An atheist who is a good person prefers live and let live.

And again, most churches are below average income that provide charitable services in low income large urban and remote rural areas. So unfortunately if you got your wish it would be a huge disservice for many people of poverty level status.

Who's trying to educate Christianity as fact to your kids?

When we're talking about a statue on a ski resort that hardly anyone notices unless they run into it skiing, this is not equivalent to displaying the 10 Commandments on a government building. Do you concede that groups like TFFRF go overboard with their Christian iconography targets?

Where do you get the not committing atrocities because of atheism OR communism, but totalitarianism? Yes, totalitarianism is one of the reasons, but why are you eliminating communism as one of the reasons?

Sorry, left this unanswered. The answer is because there's nothing about the economic concept of communism that mandates murdering those that don't agree. That has nothing to do with one farm growing wheat, the other growing corn, and pooling the two resources for communal use. People who live on communes do not, by rule, go out and murder those who live in other communities. Totalitarians co-opt any reason at all to consolidate power and impose their will. It shouldn't be this hard to understand. Communists =/= atheists =/= totalitarians.  

I broadly agree with this. BROADLY. It does demonstrate that religion adds nothing to the proposition: a good person will do as little evil as possible, and a bad person will find excuses to do whatever they want. Thankfully the world is much more full of good people than bad people. This is a much cleaner discussion than your still ill conceived communist charge: a communist is simply someone who thinks that a collective pool of resources doled out according to each individual's needs is a good idea. It has nothing to do with religion at all, so we can leave it by the wayside. You can become someone who thinks that it's a good idea, and still go to church. Whether or not communism is effective and practical (it is demonstrably not) is an entirely different subject. 

Churches don't DO anything at all. The people in them do. Are you saying if there weren't a church nearby, you wouldn't have any humanitarian imperatives? I can do a lot more with property tax dollars for those people than I can with a basement where AA meets. That can be done in a thousand places. 

How many arguments have we had with your Dover school board thing? Where creation is taught as real? What about prayer in school? These aren't imagined. They happened and continue to happen. Don't be obtuse. How many cases of public schools putting on Nativity Plays at Christmas are there in the last ten years? Plenty. It doesn't look to you like they're trying to teachit as fact, but what they RISK doing, whatever their intent, is putting Chistiianity in a place of preference, not considering the rest of the tax payers. I don't care if a Catholic school has that event, good for them, but they don't get any tax payer dollars. A public school is engendering discrimination using public money this way. 

Humans are humans. It doesn't matter what you put next to their name in identity.

A religion is more dangerous than atheism in my opinion bc most atheist don't subscribe to a belief.

An atheist might think we can all be in a simulation. Or, an atheist can believe we are spirits. But it's all speculation and a point of good conversation. Religion is different however bc there isn't much room for discussion. I can't say i don't believe in god, but... i believe a simulation is probable. I'm already hated by said christian at a certain level for not accepting the minimum god theory. All atheism means is a disbelief in god. It doesn't mean said person can't be open minded, or even waiting for evidence for a god. Said atheist is open... religious people aren't open to alternatives. That's the danger. Bc if you live in the past, you are not evolving. And to me, that's dangerous bc humans in the past were sub-human to the standards of today... why look up to them?

Absolutely not!

Well, there actually wouldn't be any "Utopia" at all.

Some people seem to get upset when atheists (of the western humanist variety) are associated or equated with communist atheists (in response to equating 9/11 and the Spanish inquisition to Christianity).

American atheist activists are pro-atheism. Communist atheists, like in China are anti-religion. So there's really no difference other than a reshuffling on emphasis. And that's exactly what an atheist society in America would become. A totalitarian society that would be forced to use communist tactics to control religion.

There's this idea that because church attendance may decline at times, Christians will faze out eventually through lack of Christian reproduction. Christianity is not a racial/ethnic group, and the thorn-in-the-flesh for atheists would always be conversions. At best, cultural Christianity might become extinct, but what's to stop recurring conversions that constantly have frustrated communist States like China?

Any nation that attempts to prohibit freedom of belief and individual liberties will adopt totalitarian characteristics. Why does it matter if the regime is atheistic or religious, communist or capitalist? And why would a western atheist want a nation without democratic values?

Personally I think you just got sick of Christianity being equated to Islamic terrorism or some such and finally snapped and just started ranting about communists. Like you heard one too many "9/11's" and "Spanish Inquisitions" and were like "Oh yeah well COMMUNISTS! Communist ATHEISTS! Comm -- communatheists!"

Is that what happened, Rod? I feel like that's what happened, Rod.

If I snapped, which I don't recall, it would have been a long time ago.

Well I think nearly every group has been guilty of thinking, "Wouldn't everything be better if everyone thought and behaved like us?" But there's a difference between that, and taking the step to "Let's make everyone think and behave like us."

Obviously I can't speak for other atheists here, but from my experience with you I'm pretty confident you don't want to take that step, so I would never intentionally compare you to religious extremists who do want to take it. But at the same time, I guess I don't understand why you think atheist activists do want to take it.

Why do you think the change atheist activists strive for is going to come at the expense of your human rights, like the right to freedom of belief? All activism strives for change; will all activism "eventually become totalitarian characteristics"? How is atheistic activism unique from other activism in the danger it presents to democracy, in your eyes?

I do agree with the bolded text, btw, and I duly note that the OP is not aimed at all atheists.

And yeah I've been gone a long time...