Imagine a person who finds meaning through prayer, community, ritual, and the belief in something transcendent. Now imagine a state that tells them this meaning is forbidden. Churches are closed. Priests are arrested. Religious education is prohibited. Practicing your faith openly becomes dangerous. The meaning system that structured your life is systematically destroyed by the state.
This is atheism as state violence: not the philosophical position that God doesn't exist, but the systematic state suppression of religion as a mechanism of control. Radzinsky documents how Stalin's regime pursued this systematically, viewing religion not as a false belief but as a political threat.1
The threat was not theological. It was organizational and psychological. Religion provided communities of meaning that the state did not control. Priests and religious leaders had authority that competed with state authority. Religious belief created loyalty to something beyond the state. All of this was incompatible with the total control Stalin sought.
The Closure of Institutions
The regime closed churches, synagogues, and mosques systematically. The buildings were repurposed: converted to warehouses, theaters, or meeting halls. The physical removal of these spaces eliminated the locations where religious community could gather.
But this was not incidental to ideology. It was calculated. Radzinsky documents how the closing of religious institutions was presented as rational modernization — these buildings were inefficient uses of space, better employed for state purposes. The language obscured the violence: the elimination of spaces where alternative meaning systems operated.2
The Elimination of Religious Authority
Priests, rabbis, and religious leaders were arrested, executed, or exiled. Some were purged during the Great Purges. Others were eliminated specifically for their religious authority. The regime removed the people who could interpret religious tradition, lead religious practice, and provide alternative meaning to the population.
Radzinsky documents how thoroughly this was pursued. By the end of Stalin's reign, organized religious leadership in the Soviet Union had been nearly completely eliminated. There were survivors, but no functioning religious hierarchy or community structure.3
The Indoctrination of Children
The regime could not simply eliminate religion in one generation. Adults had already internalized religious meaning. But children could be reached before religious ideas took hold. Education was designed to instill scientific materialism and to mock religious belief.
Schools taught that religion was superstition, that faith was the refuge of the ignorant, that the scientific worldview was the only rational one. Religious instruction was prohibited. Children were encouraged to report parents who taught them religion. The state attempted to create a generation for whom religion was simply incomprehensible — not forbidden, but unnecessary because the meaning systems the state provided were sufficient.4
Marxist Materialism as State Ideology
Marxist-Leninist ideology was explicitly atheistic. Religion was understood as a tool of capitalist oppression — the "opiate of the masses" that made workers accept their exploitation. Therefore, eliminating religion was understood as part of the revolutionary project.
But this ideological justification obscured the political reality: the regime was eliminating religion because it competed for loyalty and meaning. Whether or not religion actually was a tool of capitalist oppression was secondary. The primary concern was that religion was a competing source of authority.
Radzinsky documents how this ideological justification permitted the violence to proceed: the persecution of religion was not understood as oppression but as liberation. Closing churches was not seen as violence but as progress. The ideology provided moral cover for the suppression.5
Psychology and Meaning Systems — Religion as Psychological Necessity: Research in psychology documents how meaning systems (religious or secular) are necessary for psychological health.6 By eliminating religion without providing alternative meaning systems, the regime created psychological conditions of meaninglessness and despair. The violence was not just social but psychological — the destruction of the frameworks that allowed people to understand their lives as meaningful. The regime attempted to fill this vacuum with state ideology and the state's meaning system, but for many people, this was insufficient. The parallel reveals that suppressing religion is not simply about controlling organizations; it's about destroying alternative frameworks for meaning-making and imposing the state's framework instead.
History and Cultural Genocide — Elimination of Identity Markers: Anthropological study of cultural suppression reveals that eliminating religious and cultural practice eliminates the markers through which groups maintain identity.7 By suppressing religion, the regime was suppressing not just belief but identity — the ways that people understood themselves and their communities. This is why religious suppression is sometimes understood as cultural genocide: it doesn't necessarily kill the people but kills the culture that makes them who they are. The parallel reveals that religious suppression is a form of identity destruction.
Theology and Theodicy — The Problem of Evil in Totalitarian States: Religious theodicy asks how a good God permits suffering; totalitarian states face the parallel problem.8 If the state is the ultimate source of meaning and power, how can it permit suffering? Religious traditions answer: God permits suffering for reasons beyond human understanding. But a state that claims total control cannot permit the explanation of suffering that transcends its authority. It must either eliminate suffering (which totalitarian states cannot do) or eliminate the questions about suffering (which requires eliminating the religious frameworks that ask those questions). The parallel reveals that totalitarian states are in competition with religion at the most fundamental level: over who explains suffering and why people should accept it.
Radzinsky presents religious suppression as rooted in both ideology (Marxist materialism) and political control (eliminating competing authority).9 Both motivations drove the policy.
But the evidence suggests that as the regime matured, the ideological dimension became less important and the political control dimension became primary. Early revolutionary suppression of religion was justified through ideology. But Stalin's suppression was justified more through the need to eliminate enemies and control populations. The ideology remained, but the primary driver was control.10
This reveals that ideologies can be vessels for political violence: they provide language for suppression that feels justified, but the underlying driver may be the consolidation of power. As the ideology becomes normalized, it's easier to see through to the political mechanism beneath.
The Sharpest Implication
If a state can eliminate religion and replace it with state-provided meaning systems, then the most fundamental defense of religious freedom is not protection of doctrine but protection of the right to create alternative meaning systems independent of state authority. Religious freedom is not primarily about whether someone believes in God; it's about whether someone can construct meaning outside state control. Authoritarian states understand this clearly, which is why they always suppress religion first. It's not about theology; it's about preventing the emergence of alternative meaning systems that could challenge state authority.
Generative Questions