The connection between authoritarianism and religion is pretty weak. Most XX century authoritarian countries which terrorized their citizens where anti-religious. Take a look at the history of the Soviet Union where hundred of thousands of people were prosecuted and killed for being religious. Extremes are dangerous in general.

I don't think that's accurate. Lenin and Stalin were pretty anti-religious. So was Mussolini. But I can't think of any other authoritarian regimes that were specifically anti-religious.

Franco wasn't anti-religious. Neither was Hitler. Nor Castro. Nor any of the dictators in the African countries. We've had lots and lots of dictators and totalitarian regimes, few of which were anti-religious.

Stalin managed to kill quite a few million people, so that's one important anti-religious figure if you're using (crass) "kill-count" as a statistic.

Also, Mao Zedong was anti-religious, and is estimated to have killed between 40M and 70M.

> Nor any of the dictators in the African countries.

Well, yes, there are horrific genocides and mass murders and atrocities in Africa supposedly in the name of religion.

I agree that evil is done by both atheists and believers.

My understanding is that Castro is quite anti-religious just like any other communist leader (confirmed by Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Cuba). Hitler was in conflict with Christian churches as well since he was essentially building his own religion and did not want competition. I was born in a country where religion was systematically mocked and religious people had to hide their beliefs. Yet somehow getting rid of the religion did not make people any nicer. I am glad that it is not the case in ex-SU anymore. Tolerance and letting people be whatever they want to be is the way to build a stable society. In the US it may seem like many fanatics are religious, but having seen many examples of the opposite I do not think fanaticism and religion are strongly correlated.

I'd suggest generalizing a bit. Fanaticism causes severe problems, whether that fanaticism comes from religion or from any other belief system that people hold so strongly that they can't tolerate any questioning of it.

He didn't make the connection, and you'd have to be specifically looking for it to read that into his statement, I think. I read it as just a list of some of the qualities of the Iranian state.

And gizmo is right, there have been brutal dictators who use religion as a cudgel, and there have been those who haven't.

How can people say things like this? Do you seriously believe that if Santorum were to be elected, the US would begin to participate in religion fueled executions? Or more importantly, do you think Santorum supports these actions?

No, not immediately, but Santorum and the American religious right in general make no secret of their disdain for this country's founding principle of the separation of church and state, and are clearly eager to impose their religious dogma on the rest of us – see the current far-right platform issues of abortion and now birth control, for instance. They really won't stop until they can impose christian notions of morality on the entire country.

So while Santorum himself is unlikely to bring on religious-based executions even if he did become president, a vote for him is a vote that the country continue down this frightening and destructive path. Stay on that path long enough, and eventually we end up where Iran is now.

http://handthatfeedsyou.blogspot.com/2012/01/yes-santorum-is... doesn't leave much room for doubt that he wants to create an islamic-style theocracy but using catholic dogma.