A nun known as Sister Alphonsa will be canonized by the Catholic Church later this year, becoming the first Indian female saint, according to the BBC. 
Sister Alphonsa has a somewhat dark life story:
Sister Alphonsa (1910-1946) of Kerala was beatified in 1986 by the late Pope John Paul II on a visit to India. She will be formally canonised in October.
She had burnt and disfigured herself to avoid a marriage, having chosen to dedicate her life to Christ.
She will become a saint ahead of the Albanian nun Mother Teresa of Calcutta.
Mother Teresa was beatified in 2003.
The decision to accord sainthood to Sister Alphonsa was made over the weekend at a meeting between the Pope and other cardinals at the Vatican.
Sister Alphonsa, whose real name was Anna Muttathupadathu, was described by those who knew her as generous and loving. (link)
I should note that the story about it being an intentional self-injury is not repeated on Sister Alphonsa’s Wikipedia page, nor did the Catholic Church refer to it that way in its statement on Sister Alphonsa’s Beatification in 1986. (Also, see how her story is described by Catholicism.org) So perhaps the story isn’t true, or if it is true, it may not be important to those who revere Sister Alphonsa. (If readers have experience with Sister Alphonsa, do people tend to believe this story? Is it important to the popular understanding of why she is revered?)
Of course, Sister Alphonsa is not becoming a Saint for that back-story, but rather because she lived a pious life, overcame her disability (and the lifetime of pain that followed her injury), and helped people. Two miracles are also attributed to her (that is also a requirement for canonization, as I understand it).
That said, I have to say I find the back-story powerful. Is it really true that at age 13 she burned herself in this way to escape a marriage she didn’t want, in order to dedicate her life to the Church? If so, that is at once an amazing and horrible act of self-assertion — and renunciation.
Yeah, the Vatican takes this stuff very seriously and sends out a team of investigators to verify any claims of miracles. Usually, it is some type of healing. No miracle = no sainthood.
Nice story Anna. I was in Kerala and Chennai recently and the history of Catholicism in the south is quite long and rich.
Sunil, just for clarification, the post was by me, Amardeep. (Unless you’re referring to specific comments by Anna…)
Also, that she was so awesome that the folks in Happy Days named their coolest character after her. El-phonso = The Fonz.
Look, I don’t do fulmination.
OK. Tens of thousands of Catholic boys and girls systematically raped and abused for generations. Across the world. Whole parts of Catholic Ireland were a child molesting zone until recently. The Catholic Church knew about this and covered it all up. So much for holiness eh.
And yes, it happens in other religions too. That’s what happens, when institutions are threatened by corruption, even the so called ‘holiest’ structures look away from the evil done in their territory and in their name. Have the grace to take this message with equanimity and without putting up the defence mechanisms as the Church did for so long.
Let’s have a Catholic child sainted for enduring abuse at the hands of a priest. Do miracles happen to those children too?
Like the Catholic Church, The International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) was rocked in the 1980s and 90s by a massive legal case regarding all the psychological and physical abuse of children admitted into their boarding schools known as “gurukulas”.
Mind you, most of the teachers and staff of these various schools, the two big ones being in India – Mayapur, West Bengal and Vrindavan, Uttar Pradesh, were “celibate” males.
These celibate males were responsible for the sexual abuse and rape of boy students. However, some female teachers were accused of psychological abuse of both boy and girl students, as well as some pretty harsh beatings and weird punishments like making them eat their own vomit.
I know several people who have survived.
It is still an ongoing issue within ISKCON, though now they have established a Child Protection Office to make sure these types of things do not go on again.
I think there is a connection between repressed and frustrated sexuality and child abuse. Just my personal observation.
Pardesi Gori? Is that you?
Sorry Amardeep … I meant to thank the author of the post. For some reason I thought it was Anna.
I’m asking this question in good faith: is a 22-year gap between beatification (1986) and canonization (2008) considered fast or slow? I know that John Paul II fast-tracked the process in 1983 with a bull, but I cannot find quantifiable data to compare how much he increased the throughput relative to what the situation was before 1983. As I understand it, one miracle gets a beatification, while two get a canonization, but I’d like to know more about why it takes 22 years to get a second attribution of a miracle. What does the investigation generally involve?
Later Day Saints:
Varsha Sabhnani was an ISKCON member too?
Look at this page, and search for “PRESENT PROCEDURE IN CAUSES OF BEATIFICATION AND CANONIZATION”. Historically, one of the important positions was that of the skeptic, or advocatus diaboli, who examines the claims of miracles critically and is expected to testify against them, although apparently that has not really been used of late. Hitchens was asked his opinions about the miracle required for MT’s beatification, but felt that the process was an eyewash. He shares his opinions here with his characteristic subtlety.
I am a catholic from Kerala, now in the US. I am originally from the Bharanaganam area where she is buried and have been following her life since my childhood. BBC’s comments and the article from ptr_vivek above is partly true. What really happened was that Sr. Alphonsa was forced into an arranged marriage against her pleas to let her join a monastery to become a nun. The night before her engagement, having no other alternative, she decided to dip one of her feet in an ash pit which as smoldering from par-boiling rice on the previous day. The motive was to postpone the wedding at the minimum but also she might have known that that would disfigure her legs and make her less attractive in the marriage market. But the pit was deeper than she thought and her legs went knee deep and she ended up with major burns. Later she apologized to her step-mother for taking such a drastic step. Step mother on the other hand, seeing her conviction and perseverence, relented and allowed her to join the monastery.
But it was for her virtous life and not her disfiguring of her legs that she is being made her a saint.
Incidentally, the miracles obtained by her intercession, which the Vatican accepted for her beatification and canonization are related to healing of the legs of children- two cases involved miraculous healing of children born with club foot whose feet became normal and could walk after visiting her tomb. One, a boy cured as an infant (miracle for canonization) and is 15 years old now , another is 71 years old now and was cured when he was 11 (the miracle that kicked off the whole process by the Church authorities). Both their stories are mentioned in mainstream Malayalam newspapers when news about Sr. Alphonsa is reported.
Reply to some comments above: Sr. Alphonsa’s cause was introduced in the 50s, much earlier than Mother Teresa and that is why she is a saint before Mother Teresa.
Regarding whether the cases are political- A person is declared a saint in the Church only if people in the Church want him/her to be declared a saint. If there are lots of people who want it and believe that someone is a saint then it is easier. St. Therese of Lisiuex (died 1897) was so popular that she was canonized in 25 years. Mother Teresa & John Paul II will be canonized at a fast pace because they are immensely popular. But again 2 miracles have to be confirmed after proper investigation to confrim they are authentic.
-SJ
Thanks a lot Amardeep. This post has launched dozens of responses full of sound and fury signifying nothing. To libero,the catholic church is what moby dick was to captain Ahab.
“All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick. He piled upon the whale’s white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart’s shell upon it.”
PG, I figured you out from this gem
. Happily all you have to do to avoid Indian men is fly back to the states
She herself now travels all over the world, including the States, giving spiritual discourses. She is a modern day saint in our tradition.
Welcome back, lc.
PG, you too are a modern day saint in the Sepia Mutiny canon, what with your apparent lobotomy.
Meaning, the woman is respected as being “very advanced” in our spiritual practice, she is not a saint for getting a hysterectomy. She faked gyn problems so that she could get a hysterectomy so that she would be rendered “useless” on the IM3 – Indian Marriage Meat Market.
Now she’s free to live her life as she pleases.
It’s a shame she had to go to such extremes, but more power to her!
What does that name mean (if it’s not a misspelling)? I know next to nothing about Christianity, but even I know that the Mormons are “Latter-day-Saints.”
Play on words, wonly! (and even!)
Not to be a killjoy, but what is the “play”?
Indian marriages get a bad rap, sometimes unfairly and usually excessively. I know that there are extreme cases of dysfunctional marriages gone bad, particularly in rural areas and in some urban areas, but for the large part, they work out well for both parties. It’s actually pretty inspiring to see how long marriages last and how successful they are, for the most part, in our community.
71 · Wanderer said
Because unlike silly me, the boys accept that excessive expectations, the occasional sense of entitlement and every other annoyance are all impossible to prevent. I also run the Flickr group and until recently, our Facebook and Friendster presences. It would logically follow that I see more shit because of that.
SM is a volunteer-driven endeavor. That’s not a point-of-view of mine, that is a fact. It’s frustrating when people don’t remember that we have day jobs or expect us to perform like a newspaper with a paid staff. That’s unfair. THAT is why you hear ANNA complaining. THAT and in general, male bloggers don’t get anywhere near as much abuse. People don’t email Abhi weight-loss plans or call him a slut.
Anyway, that’s my answer because I am hoping you are open-minded, sincere and perhaps in a peevish mood. You have no commenting history, so it’s entirely possible that I just explained myself earnestly to a troll.
All religion is fairy tales for grown ups.
1 · blaufick said
Isn’t that what theists are?
First female Indian saint in the Roman calendar, that is. Plenty of early female Indian saints in the Oriental Orthodox calendar, though, strangely, Indian Orthodoxy has latterly confined canonisation to clergy. I must inquire of Egyptian, Ethiopian, Syrian and Armenian acquaintance what the situation is in their branches of Oriental Orthodoxy. Not much point in asking Iraqi Christians: they have other matters on their mind at the moment.
Does anyone do anything out of pure altruism? I mean, there are so many reasons people would help others: to earn praise and respect from their peers, to receive a reward in the spiritual afterlife, to add meaning to their current life, to get that addictive feeling of having helped someone (that sensation of warmth you can get in your “heart”), etc. Though most of these reasons may be subconsious, does it make it any better than someone who’d do it knowing well the (selfish) reasons they were helping others? Does it even matter as long as they’re helping others?
It’s a bit depressing, but I can’t think of an example of someone who would do something without gaining something in return. Is it even possible?
(sorry if this is too off topic, but the post made me think of it)
Nice. It commences with the very first comment. That’s classy. To me it’s not a question of whether something is interesting or crazy, it’s a question of respect. The renunciation of the world or its obligations is a common part of the narratives of Saints. From what I was taught, it seems like she lived a good and charitable life…so why be so obnoxious about her choice with regards edgar dantas please visit my site for info on gadgets and please leave ur comments http://www.gadgetworld.co.in
libero “I don’t do fulmination.”
If you say so.
“Let’s have a Catholic child sainted for enduring abuse at the hands of a priest. Do miracles happen to those children too?” Few official saints died as children, but all saints were children at one time, and some were sainted precisely because of what they endured from the Church’s hierarchy and clergy, while remaining faithful to the basic tenets of the faith and beliefs while serving their fellow creatures. Pretty near impossible, but you see, that is why they were considered saints. That status comes from having endured to the extremity and, spiritually speaking, survived spiritually in faith. The better minded among religious people hoped that such examples will inspire society in the direction of justice. This sort of psychology is not popular today and is considered unhealthy. It was never unique to the Catholic church. The modern mind and reality seeks more direct and efficient solutions to evil. However, fanatical atheists have caused as many problems as fanatical religious people and have brought their own set of unique horrors. An interesting side note is that hardly any apparitions of the Virgin Mary or other saintly personages have been reported as having occurred to priests, and this is well known in Church history. Priests were never considered the last word on holiness just as presidents and senators rarely embody the spirit of pure, honest governance. Yet the idea of a pure, honest governement never dies. OTOH, clergy were often excluded from trials because the religious confessions of the accused to the priests did not coincide with what the judges wanted to hear. There was a deep cultural assumption that a confession to a priest was the truth. That is probably not there in modern Catholicism, at least not in the U.S. or Europe. Perhaps still in India. As someone noted, there are many Christian Indian saints preceding Sister Alphonse as the Christian faith goes back as far the apostles in India. The relationship of the church with its clergy is very complex and frought with ambiguity, no less in India than Europe.
Kush tendon: You’ve linked to wikipedia and in my research group I’m not allowed to take that too seriously. I’m not convinced about the “hundreds of thousands”. However, I’ve seen statistics gathered by the FBI and DOJ, and they are bad enough. The occurrence even of hundreds is so bad that it might as well be hundreds of thousands, but Catholics do number in the hundreds of millions. During a meeting in Israel I recall that there were programs about child molestation among Orthodox hasidim. My Muslim friends have talked about how common pederasty was among certain elements of their societies. And we Indians are still living down the fevered leers of westerners who thought all good Hindu denizens of the sub-continent married small children–hundreds of millions apparently. I am not defending the honor of priests. They have to do that themselves by cleaning up their act. Problem is, you can’t legislate hypocracy.
Seeing this article, Sister Alphonsa’s face which had been in the musty innards of my memory came back to me. I know that I’ve seen her face somewhere but I don’t know when or where! Perhaps I’ve seen her picture pasted on a believer’s wall many years back (?) At least now I know her name.
This is wandering slightly off course in a discussion that seems to be petering out anyway, but I really have to say that this:
is a very familiar but entirely spurious argument. I am not saying that all religious institutions haven’t done some good things along with the bad, but the difference between the atrocities committed by religious institutions and the atrocities committed by atheists is that atheists do not do these things for the sake of their non-belief. The terrible things they’ve done, they’ve done because of other, unrelated convictions. There has been — as far as I know — no recorded case of an atheist or an atheist institution doing inhumane things solely in order to defend atheism or stand up for its tenets, or because they believe they must do these things in order to qualify as good atheists, and how could there have been? Atheism has no supposedly unifying scriptures that are nevertheless open to interpretation. You could argue that Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Sikh/etc. etc. etc. scriptures all teach good things, but that people interpret them in horrible, self-servings ways — the famous “religion is good, people are bad” argument. I’m not taking issue with that, at least not here 🙂 . But you can’t argue anything comparable about atheists because because atheism teaches nothing at all, so to say “Hey, atheists have done bad things too!” is like saying “Hey, people with freckles have done bad things too!” Um, okay. That’s a neat little observation, but what’s your point?
79 · shankaracharya said
And he didn’t nominate Baba Amte? Why hide, Tamil Tiger? You used several handles today, but you are none other than the Michigan-State-based felcher (35.8.204) who is in love with Modi, hates Muslims and talked a lot of shit about how your trolling was some “noble protest” against our ignoring the plight of Hindus in Malaysia. Then, when we did post about Malaysia, you didn’t stop your abuse– which means that you are nothing but a pathetic troll. In the last hour, you have
-left ten comments on this site -vandalized the SM Flickr group -sent me hate mail about my appearance -and trolled my personal blog
verra pani nokku, maire.
And in the time it took to type my last comment:
As for people who also read our cousin ‘cross the pond– now you know: it wasn’t me. In fact, I’m stating it here, for the record, so everyone knows: I am not posting comments on UltraBrown, Pickled Politics or UberDesi. I can’t, because I never get the opportunity to read them, not when I have to be Buffy the Troll Slayer.
41 · Later Day Saints right next door said
One wonders how one can fake gyn problems serious enough to require a hysterectomy. Advising a patient to have a hysterectomy at that age is something that isn’t done lightly. Then again, she might have found a sympathetic doctor ……………….
71 · A N N A said
Anna, I appreciate you taking the time to answer, I sincerely do. I’m not a troll. I am a LONNNGGG time reader (2004, anyone?) and I was a bit cranky last night, that much is true — but I am genuinely interested in hearing the boys’ own trials and tribulations as well. I believe part of the reason that you are so vociferously picked on is because you do actually say something about it. Not that you shouldn’t! You absolutely have every right to speak up. I was just curious as to why the guys don’t say anything.
Also – can I ask why my comment was deleted? I was hoping to go back and see if I had truly written a nasty comment, but unfortunately it is not there.
“But you can’t argue anything comparable about atheists because because atheism teaches nothing at all”
Depends on what atheist you talk to. State mandated atheism such as that of communist Russia has been responsible for persecuting religions severely though it is not a fashionable topic. I have seen the ruins of deliberately destroyed old churches in these countries. Talk to anyone who lived through the 20th century in eastern Europe. Alexander Solenitzen might be a better one to opine on that. For a little light reading, start with the Gulag Archipelago. http://become.homeip.net/108
“…so to say “Hey, atheists have done bad things too!” is like saying “Hey, people with freckles have done bad things too!” Um, okay. That’s a neat little observation, but what’s your point?”
Let me be more specific. 80 years of Communisism in eastern Europe and almost as much in China. The lifting of state imposed atheism was as liberating to these societies as any separation of church and state.
Actually, hysterectomies are being recommended for women who suffer from endometriosis, which is quite common and it is not hard to fake that.
am impressed by your command on malayalam 🙂
verra pani nokku, maire
Ouch!
😀
Let me inform you that most statistics reported in wikipedia articles usually are linked to citations at the bottom of the article. (and they also typically highlight when a statement is in need of a citation.) So, its very easy for you identify the authentic statements. btw, I think you would do a favor to the people in your research group by brining the above fact to their attention, as it seems like they are ignorant of this. Most people nowadays, including academics, use wikipedia fairly regularly. Crying foul on its overall credibility is a bit outdated, imho 😀
Anna, ( and to an extent Abhi )
First, I would like to thank you for the great effort that y’all put into covering the hindu-indian isssues in Malaysia. Preston did a great job with those photographs and much kudos to your team effort for doing so. Your Coverage was better than most “mainstream” media outlets.
Anna, your like an elder sister..maybe an aunt. You cover alot of issues with great effort and thankyou for your patience, passion and perspective. Their are alot of people who have access to the msu servers and it could be one of many ppl posting on here. Cuz, Sepia Mutiny is pretty popular in Michigan. I’ve over heard fellow 19 year old desi’s discussing your blog at the Shaw Hall cafeteria.. Thats the place you get desi food once a week too.. itz pretty good..actually its aiight.
You guys do good work. Thank you again!
Lastly, I think Tamil Tiger & Co. may have been trying send a message across to you. But perhaps he/she/them lacked the talent to do that in an effecive way. So let me give it a shot..
Vioence, Hatred, Injustice in absolute terms are unwarranted and bad for society. No religion or theology or philosphy should justify killing innocent people. The reason people like Narendra Modi become popular is a deep seated unhealed frustration of certain elements of society, who feel their idealogy, philosphy, belief system is selectively targeted.
Certain bloggers on here display vitrolic animosity for Mr.Modi, for obvious reasons. But when similar acts of cruelty towards innocent people are carried out by a man/woman or group of men/women masquerading behind the garb of theology/belief systems.. Sepia Mutiny tends to have a rather aloof outlook towards it.
This unintentional or rather intentional ( maybe i’m missing something ) approach creates frustration ti an extent If Bush uses torture on innocent Iraqi’s like u’ve seen in Abu Garib , If Taslima Nasreen is hounded and phyisically abused in India, if CPI-CPM leaders destroy village after village of innocent families in Nandigram,W.Bengal, If Pakistani general abuse innocent Balochistani village folk day after day, year after year, If Islamo-fascists kill innocent Thai buddhist monks in Southern Thailand, If Congolese kill their own, If the Basque seperatists kill innocent Spanish children.. etc.. we expect sepia mutiny to have an unwavering attitude to such crimes against humanity.
I know alot of these issues are outide the scope of the Southeast asian diaspore, but as India is a diverse nation and desi’s are of all colors and religions. Maybe the same prism from which you see Modi should be applied to all those who are part of the same club, who comitt the same crimes, and call those folks for what they are.
Again, Maybe you folks have a particular agenda, It does not seem like. Keep up your great work. and for TT..
Love is the only way…
Go Sepia Mutiny!! Anna is the best.
Amreekan (#84): thanks, I’ve read the Gulag Archipelago and appreciate your keen concern for my literary development, but I don’t think you’re getting my point. Atheism is tangential to the atrocities you cite; it’s totalitarianism that was the problem, as you accidentally pointed out yourself:
It’s actually incorrect to equate even communism with totalitarianism, but I’m going to let that slide for the purposes of this argument — I’ll just say that it’s even less correct, and more distressing to many, that you would equate atheism with totalitarianism. My point is just there is no unified atheist movement — no atheism with a capital A — that lays down atheist do’s and don’ts the way the Catholic Church does — therefore, all manner of things can be done “in the name of” the Catholic Church, but doing things “in the name of” atheism is by definition impossible.
brownelf, thanks for fighting the good fight about the standard wrong pathetic strawmen that the usual faith defenders put up. Good luck getting a conversion though 🙂
90 · brownelf said
thank you, thank you – just when i think elves won’t magically solve problems, you show up 🙂 hate to point it out, but the prevalence of communism=totalitarianism view in the US is infinitely annoying. there are, of course, historical reasons for this.
89 · Nala said
Thank you so much for your comment, but do you really think someone trolling five sites in under an hour is attempting to “send a message” beyond “I want you to have a shitty day at work, so I’m making as many online messes as possible, for you to be stuck cleaning up, lest you/your site’s reputation and everything you’ve worked your ass off for, for four years be damaged“?
If they are “trying to send a message”, why single out me out, why attack me personally, when I am not even the blogger who writes about Modi? How does calling me an ugly, obese bitch register a complaint against an entire group of bloggers?
What message were they trying to send when they raged about how an innocent cancer patient who was profiled here deserved to die, because this blog had it coming for its allegedly anti-Hindu views? And what message were they conveying by bragging that they were happy such a tragedy occurred and hoping for more (cf. Facebook, for this disgusting example of hate email)?
Impersonating a blogger on other sites to misrepresent their views (after emotionally abusing them), strikes me as the work of someone who is vindictive, malicious and possibly mentally ill– not an awkward attempt to communicate, from someone inarticulate.
You wrote some really kind words and I appreciate them; I’m not sure your resident/Michigan State troll deserves your intercession or assistance.
79 · brownelf said
and
90 · brownelf said
This seems true to me, as far as it goes. But it’s important to remember that atheism (with or without a capital A) does posit a view of the world. Atheism is not neutral; agnosticism is. And while it may be unusal to call atheism a religion, both atheism and religions are in the same school of thinking as religions (i.e. claiming knowledge about the existence of God). Perhaps that is why blind atheism — and its cousin, fanatical atheism — historically have had the potential to be as dangerous and damaging as blind religious belief.
Zacko “Perhaps that is why blind atheism — and its cousin, fanatical atheism — historically have had the potential to be as dangerous and damaging as blind religious belief.”
Fan bases appear to be developing on this thread. Thank you Zacko. There is atheism and then there are atheists. Atheism is what you make of it.
Mr. Rahul offers “..standard wrong pathetic strawmen that the usual faith defenders put up.” You just can’t bring up those old, old questions that have no final answers without getting dismissive comments. They didn’t satisfy my questions when I was very young. My friend, any man is like a strawman if the wind blows hard enough.
I am not “defending” faith, an exercise in futility. Either one believes or one doesn’t. I am explaining my attitude towards it. There are many people who simply do not want to bother themselves with religion, who dismiss it as a chimera. Yet how can one’s sense of one’s relation with the Universe be of no influence to one’s actions especially among those who seek influence over others? Of course such a belief would have influence. Atheists believe in the non-exisitence of God. An acquaintance of a non-Christian but religious background, told me his religion teaches that it is better to have no religion than to fight over religion. No argument there.
Per the veracity of Wikipedia: depends on the subject. There is a Wikipedia article on virtually everything from old tv shows to how to make pappadam to the manufacture of dynamite. They not peer reviewed in all subjects, if any, and are often laughably biased. The internet is constantly evolving, but the government agency I work in will not accept quotes taken from wikipedia until they have all been checked and verified. I tried it once.
I think this misses the point. Atheism does not claim that it is neutral. However, atheism is a personal choice, organized religion is often a social or community phenomenon.
No, you claimed that atheism is responsible for the evils in Russia and China. That is blatantly false.
96 · Rahul said
Rahul, as I said, I think you’re point is correct as far as it goes. However, I wonder, sincerely, whether totalitarian (in communist Soviet Union, China, etc.) would have been possible without mandatory atheisim. Do you think totalitarians succeed and continue, where diversity of religious belief exists? Put another way, could totalitarian revolutionaries maintain control if they weren’t belief enforcers (either religious or atheistic), but instead were neutral/agnostic? I think probably not.
That’s why it’s important to point out, again, that atheism is not neutral. And why, in reply to your point that it’s just “a personal choice,” it actually isn’t. Agnosticism is a personal choice. Atheism may not be an organized like religion, but it can be subverted on a massive scale like religion, and thus used as a means to control power.
Well, I think we are at a definitional impasse here. Totalitarianism, by definition, is regulation of every aspect of life, both personal and public. And belief falls under that ambit – the problem is totalitarianism, not atheism.
Again, atheism was not subverted, it was a totalitarian regime that controlled every aspect of life, including expressed belief.
Zacko, totalitarianism = enforcement of particular beliefs, by definition, no? 🙂
Maybe I’m missing something, but I have to disagree. It’s a subtle distinction, but I think an important one.
Totalitarianism is not just a matter of “controlling every aspect of life” (Rahul @98) or “enforcement of particular beliefs” (portmanteau @99). To exist for any period of time, totalitarianism needs blind belief in a religion. Any religion — including Atheism. Spanish Inquisition (Catholicism), Taliban (Islam), Communist Soviet Union (Atheism).
You can’t have a totalitarian state that enforced mandatory Agnosticism. It couldn’t stay totalitarian very long.
Again, atheism is not neutral, and that’s why I believe —
77 · amreekan said
is comparable and true.