Länder, die Staatsatheismus praktizieren.

Pretty much Asia

Mexico never practiced state atheism. Mexico practiced anticlericalism directed specifically at Rome and its followers. At no time did Mexico actively enshrine atheism in law. I’m sure there are Roman Catholics who want to pretend that anyone who isn’t Roman Catholic is an atheist.

I like how you still consider GDR a separate country 👍🏻

What about Uruguay?

They replaced praising God, with praising the leader and the ruling party.

You have a map that has Yugoslavia on it. Can you find a map that is at least from this century?

afghanistan ♥️

Interesting. I would have thought a minority of countries have state religion, especially in Western Europe. It seems it’s the other way around.

China does not “practice atheism”. They practice Chinese Folk Religion, which is an amalgamation of local traditions with a hint of Buddhism. Source: lived in China and know that 90% of people there have statues/seals of protection gods at home. Especially the kitchen god lol

South Yemen was not formally atheist though. It allowed the population to practice islam and it did not try to limit the practice of it

*There is no God, only the State. Worship accordingly.*

Healthy outlook. /s

Poland is probably not correct. Polish People’s Republic was not particularly friendly to the catholic church, but it did support orthodoxy to some extent and it’s constitution claimed to guarantee freedom of religion . It also tried to in some way control polish catholicism, by making it more independent from the Vatican. But people were free to attend religious services and there were even openly religious people in the government. I think DDR was to some extent similar as they had christian parties in the parliament, but idk.

What does state Atheism exactly mean, because you have freedom to express your religion in every current socialist country

Honest question here – isn’t ’practicing atheism’ a double standard?

Fun fact in Russia Protestant Christians are harassed and oppressed even today!

The Cristero War is not often talked about, when it’s easily the second most impactful event in Mexico during the 20th century, only after the revolution. Hundreds of thousands dead, a second wave of refugees fleeing the country for the US, and the Church ended up consolidating more power and influence, and the government used it as a pretext to exert more authoritarian rule.

If you are from western Mexico, your family was probably impacted by it in some way. One of my great uncles was a seminarian and, at the behest of his own mother, became a martyr for the cause. My family talks about it as if it were some great thing, when it was actually pretty horrifying. His mother, my great-grandmother, sent him a letter saying something along the lines of, “if you don’t die for God, you are a coward and not a real Catholic”. So, when the army rolled around the seminary and demanded they stop supporting the Catholic extremists, dude basically volunteered to be executed.

So much bad information here in confusing state atheism and secularism.

Atheism can be understood in different ways. It can either be considered as simply a lack of a belief in a god, or it can be considered as an active belief that a god does not exist. The latter tends to be the most common definition used in an academic setting whilst the former makes more sense when talking about how individuals interact with the world on a day-to-day basis (imo).

State Atheism is when the state takes an active position in espousing the lack of belief in any religion (this includes “atheistic” religions like Buddhism otherwise places like Sri Lanka would be State Atheist). State Atheism doesn’t necessarily prohibit freedom of religion but it does mean that all religions have fewer rights in some form or another than atheism. This is very similar to the state actively having a state religion.
When State Atheism has been applied it has almost always taken on the form of an active belief that god does not exist, and whilst it has been discriminatory against religion, there have been varying levels of tolerance and protection of religious belief.

Secularism is when the State does not take a position in regards to religion. Secularism itself can take several forms across a spectrum. On one end you can have American-style Secularism which actively promotes religious belief and protects freedom of belief – you end up having a society which is pretty actively religious. On the other end, you can have French-style Secularism. Whilst this protects freedom of religion and treats all religions equally, it is more hostile towards religion in public and private life. However, the state does not take on an active position on the veracity or institutionalisation of any particular religious (including atheism) – hence why this is still secularism.

Little bit added on that is more opinion:

This may surprise a lot of people on here but even the dreaded “reddit atheist” (of which I am one) tends to be opposed to state atheism. Most of the ones I’ve seen are supportive of a French-style secular set-up. I personally think this style tends to infringe on freedom of religion too much, whereas the American style tends to permit too much discriminatory and hostile behaviour in the name of “freedom of religion”. My view is that a balance of these two is ideal.

Hope this is of use and I’m of course happy ro discuss with anyone who disagrees.