People can have spiritual beliefs apart from the material world y’know. Hell the Global South, which is the most prone to revolution, is deeply religious. Shit like this is what prevents people like Gaddafi from further radicalization.
It’s okay to be religious, and this is coming from a non religious person.
"the global south and the poorest people are significantly more likely to hold reactionary views like say about LGBTQ+ people for example, and they are the most prone to revolution.
it’s okay to be a biggot, and this is coming from a non biggot."
you probably
what your arguing for is called tailism chasing behind the worst views of the working people in a shit attempt to appeal to them, this is patsoc talking points 101.
people especially the poorest people tend to be more religious because it is a form of escapism it isnt a coincidence quality of life and % of religious people are linked in opposing directions.
also it is NOT ok to be part of a cult that asks you to indoctrinate your children into it thats fucked and abusive and it is NOT ok to be part of a cult that tells you to hate others and all the most popular religions in the world fit that description so until the world gets some less garbage cults imma have to argue against imaginary friends and the opioid of the masses just on practical terms alone.
Woah, easy tiger. Never said anything about bigotry, this is about alienating the majority of the population with a belief you can’t prove yourself.
But now that you mentioned it, bigotry and imperialism go hand in hand. I know Seanchai has spoken adamantly about this. It wasn’t till many decades of socialist construction that Cuba was able to put in the new Family Code. There is still much conservatism in the Chinese public, but there is work being done.
Also never advocated for cults or religious institutions. Those are reactionary yes, but to abolish them would be completely separating the party from the masses. Look at how shitty the DRA was. Look at the conservative religious rebound after the fall of the Eastern Block. These institutions need to be put under socialist control to prevent reactionary indoctrination. If not legalized they will go underground in forms of cults, with an extreme counter revolutionary nature.
I take it you have traumatic experience with religion and thus are emotionally invested. I’m not discrediting your experience, just stating atheism isn’t a prerequisite to socialist construction.
Heyyyy guess what goes hand in hand too with imperialism! Guess what? Guess which ideologies are fostered and given resources to keep poor countries bigot and indoctrinated into lethargic inmovement. Guess what, guess what!
Oh, but no matter, you like to lick the boots of precisely one of the things Lenin claim against and even there was a campaign about why religion is contrary towards socialism, but YOUR feelings are the correct ones, ain’t it?
They make a valid point about the DRA and the reactionary takeover of religious institutions in the post USSR states. State atheism encouraged reactionaries to weaponize religion to radicalize anti-socialists. What according to you should be done to avoid this in modern socialist states?
State atheism encouraged reactionaries to weaponize religion to radicalize anti-socialists
Huge problem with that is that every fucking thing done against even the blatant opulence, power and corruption of priesthood is ALWAYS seen as attack on religion and encourage reactionaries to weaponize religion to radicalize anti-socialists. Always, without any single exception.
You are correct, but its important to understand that this stuff isn’t an absolute, there are certain tolerances that exist. Not every offended party will react the same, and sure the extremists will never change but the average religious person is still human, and will be motivated firstly by their material conditions, not whatever the clergy or imam says.
And in Afghanistan for example the tolerance for state atheism simply was not there. The people were not educated enough and saw the government’s policy as unacceptable. The soviet union however used a less heavy hand when dealing with their religious populations, someone else in the thread mentioned Stalin’s speech on Sharia as an example.
Agree mostly. So i must add we are mostly talking about the conditions we live in, that is, christianity tradition and domination. Note that i don’t mind (currently) for example ba’athists who are often religious, because there the contradictions look otherwise, social manifestation of religion is antiimperialist there and proimperialist here. But note the question of current Afghanistan. Nobody here said Taliban is cool, but we were still rooting for its victory against USA because it was a bigger contradiction. Now that this is mostly resolved, the lesser contradictions started to resurface in discussion.
And after Afghanistan we have KSA which is old school religious monarchy, then we have Iran when the issues of religious oppression are certainly legit despite being hijacked by libs, and so on and on.
Again, principles vs tactics, just as Lenin and Stalin did.
Ultimately, religious “marxists” and religious socialists are people we should not have any problem striking at the common enemy with, but we should be very wary that marching with them would not lead us in bog.
Completely defund any sort of privilege nor protection to any cult, aka, religion. A church wants to open? Ask the Vatican. A Mosque? A Buddhist temple? The same. A church, mosque, kingdom hall, temple, whatever can’t be sustained? It’s going to be a nice library.
Open forums where religion can be questioned, disputed all the misdeads it made and the harm and lies it does as of now, protecting skeptics, critics and open platform the victims of religion to the public, sponsored, making it the most possible to not be victims of violent assaults, which, every. single. religion. is. guilty. of.
Then, on the other hand, absolutely prohibit religious influence in the state nor statal organisms, such as the elimination of religious propaganda in school, and also to ban minors to be able to enter temples and any other form of indoctrination since… Let’s be frank, have you ever read religious texts? If they weren’t considered religious, no minor would be near them and only in the adults section.
And then, a constant education on how reality works, which is Dialectical and Material, not magical, not spiritual, not theistic, not idealistic, not anything that religion tried to explain about based on their own collective ignorance of the time while drooling over owning absolute control over people…
This is super simple, it is not polished at all, etc, but the general direction of this is enough.
It would be nice, if daring, to prohibit any ideology that promotes hatred towards women, LGBTA+, protecting all the traditions at all cost, specially the harmful ones, demand killings of animals, pseudoscience (such as creationism, faith healing, etc), classism, etc, regardless of any allegations of deities or not, and see how many religions survive the test… But people her would cry about how some of those ideologies must be protected at all cost, and most of you, will not see the alarms regarding it.
I haven’t seen anyone claim that we need to “protect religion at all costs”, and everything you’ve said is fairly reasonable. Nobody here will oppose secularizing the state, which is much of what the first half of your suggestion is. I think where they take issue is the idea that deeply religious people need to be confronted with these ideas in such an immediate manner.
To exclude them or antagonize them is only going to entrench them in their religious views, or even worse radicalize them into anti-coms. Wouldn’t it be more sound to simply secularize the state and allow people to be educated in socialist principles? I agree wholeheartedly that religious institutions deserve no funding or support from the state, but to actively antagonize religion is only asking for religion to be used as ammunition against your socialist project.
And still was downvoted, even if not by you. Even his reasonable position is attacked HERE of all places in ML SPACE.
What ML are those, who rally do defend nor religious people, but RELIGIONS, which is happening here. As you see it is not him who can’t make this distinction. What ML’s are those that read the wiki article about historicity of Jesus posted elswhere here and upvote that fallacious nonsense? It leads me to conclusion they are the same when reading marxist theory, like basically everything about philosophy where religion is harshly denied.
Although I haven’t seen anyone outright defending religious institutions, I can only imagine that the downvotes are from those that are probably religious themselves and take offense to being called reactionary and such. I don’t doubt one minute that religious institutions are dangerous if allowed to exist in the form they do today, and I am certain that most people here believe so too. It can be a difficult thing to confront especially for those who have been raised religious or live in highly religious communities to be told that the faith they believe in is inherently evil. And victim of religion here doesn’t hold any punches so its no surprise that they’ve managed to strike some nerves, lol.
It’s like people reading about biological evolution and think “hummm this surely doesn’t applies to humans, because the Pope says that we are special hum hum hummmmm”
The problem is that even the first half of their comment would be vehemently opposed by the majority of the population where I’m from (and likely many other places too). Any popular conversations about secularizing the state always turn into shit slinging contests and the shit is primarily from the anti-secular side. My own family members are quite reactionary and mald at my most lukewarm suggestions of removing the article that says that Islam is the religion of the country. The article in English and Arabic. That article fails to give rights to the other religious groups in the country (which only some are mentioned in the constitution) and doesn’t even acknowledge the various religions that are unrecognized and lack of belief as well.
This is just the legal side, things on the ground are even more bleak.
Not directly, read between lines, and you will see how eager people here is to protect this reactionary and victims factory as much as they can.
Regarding the rest of what you said, two things:
Religious people are the most entitled collective everywhere they are stablished as some sort of majority and they all have victim/persecution complex even when they are the top privileged group, and if they are equilized with the rest, they will literally believe they are persecuted like the worst kind of bullies that they already are. So a lot of emotional gymnastics have to be made, and still, religious will get anti-com, since their ideologies are also already anti-com. Remember, the ideology is inherently theocracism.
And second: would not be a general reaction from any non-com to become rabid anti-com whenever socialism rises already? Doesn’t it happen already?
So, how to handle it?
And another question, why the special pleading?
Fuck off, do you know what is called in the phylosophical context “muh spirituality”? IDEALISM. THE OPPOSITE OF MATERIALISM. THEY ARE OPPOSITE. THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO MIX, BECAUSE MATERIALISM DENIES SPIRITUALITY, AKA, IDEALISM.
Nice touch how they also dismissed how I am talking about religion being the opposite of Dialectical Materialism, yet changing the subject by changing the meaning of “idealism” to a nice non sequitur, lmao.
As idealist as dismissing fascism, whip I never said to dismiss, but to educate against as communism educates against monarchism, capitalism, feudalism… And THEOCRACIES. “But mu-” shut up, if religion held no political power, explain Vatican, Meka, Tibet, and all the theocracist power and states ruled in all of history.
“but muh spiri-” shut up.
Why is it something man made and not free from both materialism and dialectics, forced to be considered special and not be regarded as idealist reactionarism a la socdem, nazbol, etc?
Did you really just say “religionists”?
People can have spiritual beliefs apart from the material world y’know. Hell the Global South, which is the most prone to revolution, is deeply religious. Shit like this is what prevents people like Gaddafi from further radicalization.
It’s okay to be religious, and this is coming from a non religious person.
"the global south and the poorest people are significantly more likely to hold reactionary views like say about LGBTQ+ people for example, and they are the most prone to revolution.
it’s okay to be a biggot, and this is coming from a non biggot."
what your arguing for is called tailism chasing behind the worst views of the working people in a shit attempt to appeal to them, this is patsoc talking points 101.
people especially the poorest people tend to be more religious because it is a form of escapism it isnt a coincidence quality of life and % of religious people are linked in opposing directions.
also it is NOT ok to be part of a cult that asks you to indoctrinate your children into it thats fucked and abusive and it is NOT ok to be part of a cult that tells you to hate others and all the most popular religions in the world fit that description so until the world gets some less garbage cults imma have to argue against imaginary friends and the opioid of the masses just on practical terms alone.
Woah, easy tiger. Never said anything about bigotry, this is about alienating the majority of the population with a belief you can’t prove yourself.
But now that you mentioned it, bigotry and imperialism go hand in hand. I know Seanchai has spoken adamantly about this. It wasn’t till many decades of socialist construction that Cuba was able to put in the new Family Code. There is still much conservatism in the Chinese public, but there is work being done.
Also never advocated for cults or religious institutions. Those are reactionary yes, but to abolish them would be completely separating the party from the masses. Look at how shitty the DRA was. Look at the conservative religious rebound after the fall of the Eastern Block. These institutions need to be put under socialist control to prevent reactionary indoctrination. If not legalized they will go underground in forms of cults, with an extreme counter revolutionary nature.
I take it you have traumatic experience with religion and thus are emotionally invested. I’m not discrediting your experience, just stating atheism isn’t a prerequisite to socialist construction.
Heyyyy guess what goes hand in hand too with imperialism! Guess what? Guess which ideologies are fostered and given resources to keep poor countries bigot and indoctrinated into lethargic inmovement. Guess what, guess what!
Oh, but no matter, you like to lick the boots of precisely one of the things Lenin claim against and even there was a campaign about why religion is contrary towards socialism, but YOUR feelings are the correct ones, ain’t it?
They make a valid point about the DRA and the reactionary takeover of religious institutions in the post USSR states. State atheism encouraged reactionaries to weaponize religion to radicalize anti-socialists. What according to you should be done to avoid this in modern socialist states?
Huge problem with that is that every fucking thing done against even the blatant opulence, power and corruption of priesthood is ALWAYS seen as attack on religion and encourage reactionaries to weaponize religion to radicalize anti-socialists. Always, without any single exception.
You are correct, but its important to understand that this stuff isn’t an absolute, there are certain tolerances that exist. Not every offended party will react the same, and sure the extremists will never change but the average religious person is still human, and will be motivated firstly by their material conditions, not whatever the clergy or imam says.
And in Afghanistan for example the tolerance for state atheism simply was not there. The people were not educated enough and saw the government’s policy as unacceptable. The soviet union however used a less heavy hand when dealing with their religious populations, someone else in the thread mentioned Stalin’s speech on Sharia as an example.
Agree mostly. So i must add we are mostly talking about the conditions we live in, that is, christianity tradition and domination. Note that i don’t mind (currently) for example ba’athists who are often religious, because there the contradictions look otherwise, social manifestation of religion is antiimperialist there and proimperialist here. But note the question of current Afghanistan. Nobody here said Taliban is cool, but we were still rooting for its victory against USA because it was a bigger contradiction. Now that this is mostly resolved, the lesser contradictions started to resurface in discussion.
And after Afghanistan we have KSA which is old school religious monarchy, then we have Iran when the issues of religious oppression are certainly legit despite being hijacked by libs, and so on and on.
Again, principles vs tactics, just as Lenin and Stalin did.
Ultimately, religious “marxists” and religious socialists are people we should not have any problem striking at the common enemy with, but we should be very wary that marching with them would not lead us in bog.
Completely defund any sort of privilege nor protection to any cult, aka, religion. A church wants to open? Ask the Vatican. A Mosque? A Buddhist temple? The same. A church, mosque, kingdom hall, temple, whatever can’t be sustained? It’s going to be a nice library.
Open forums where religion can be questioned, disputed all the misdeads it made and the harm and lies it does as of now, protecting skeptics, critics and open platform the victims of religion to the public, sponsored, making it the most possible to not be victims of violent assaults, which, every. single. religion. is. guilty. of.
Then, on the other hand, absolutely prohibit religious influence in the state nor statal organisms, such as the elimination of religious propaganda in school, and also to ban minors to be able to enter temples and any other form of indoctrination since… Let’s be frank, have you ever read religious texts? If they weren’t considered religious, no minor would be near them and only in the adults section.
And then, a constant education on how reality works, which is Dialectical and Material, not magical, not spiritual, not theistic, not idealistic, not anything that religion tried to explain about based on their own collective ignorance of the time while drooling over owning absolute control over people…
This is super simple, it is not polished at all, etc, but the general direction of this is enough.
It would be nice, if daring, to prohibit any ideology that promotes hatred towards women, LGBTA+, protecting all the traditions at all cost, specially the harmful ones, demand killings of animals, pseudoscience (such as creationism, faith healing, etc), classism, etc, regardless of any allegations of deities or not, and see how many religions survive the test… But people her would cry about how some of those ideologies must be protected at all cost, and most of you, will not see the alarms regarding it.
I haven’t seen anyone claim that we need to “protect religion at all costs”, and everything you’ve said is fairly reasonable. Nobody here will oppose secularizing the state, which is much of what the first half of your suggestion is. I think where they take issue is the idea that deeply religious people need to be confronted with these ideas in such an immediate manner.
To exclude them or antagonize them is only going to entrench them in their religious views, or even worse radicalize them into anti-coms. Wouldn’t it be more sound to simply secularize the state and allow people to be educated in socialist principles? I agree wholeheartedly that religious institutions deserve no funding or support from the state, but to actively antagonize religion is only asking for religion to be used as ammunition against your socialist project.
And still was downvoted, even if not by you. Even his reasonable position is attacked HERE of all places in ML SPACE.
What ML are those, who rally do defend nor religious people, but RELIGIONS, which is happening here. As you see it is not him who can’t make this distinction. What ML’s are those that read the wiki article about historicity of Jesus posted elswhere here and upvote that fallacious nonsense? It leads me to conclusion they are the same when reading marxist theory, like basically everything about philosophy where religion is harshly denied.
Although I haven’t seen anyone outright defending religious institutions, I can only imagine that the downvotes are from those that are probably religious themselves and take offense to being called reactionary and such. I don’t doubt one minute that religious institutions are dangerous if allowed to exist in the form they do today, and I am certain that most people here believe so too. It can be a difficult thing to confront especially for those who have been raised religious or live in highly religious communities to be told that the faith they believe in is inherently evil. And victim of religion here doesn’t hold any punches so its no surprise that they’ve managed to strike some nerves, lol.
It’s like people reading about biological evolution and think “hummm this surely doesn’t applies to humans, because the Pope says that we are special hum hum hummmmm”
The problem is that even the first half of their comment would be vehemently opposed by the majority of the population where I’m from (and likely many other places too). Any popular conversations about secularizing the state always turn into shit slinging contests and the shit is primarily from the anti-secular side. My own family members are quite reactionary and mald at my most lukewarm suggestions of removing the article that says that Islam is the religion of the country. The article in English and Arabic. That article fails to give rights to the other religious groups in the country (which only some are mentioned in the constitution) and doesn’t even acknowledge the various religions that are unrecognized and lack of belief as well.
This is just the legal side, things on the ground are even more bleak.
Not directly, read between lines, and you will see how eager people here is to protect this reactionary and victims factory as much as they can.
Regarding the rest of what you said, two things: Religious people are the most entitled collective everywhere they are stablished as some sort of majority and they all have victim/persecution complex even when they are the top privileged group, and if they are equilized with the rest, they will literally believe they are persecuted like the worst kind of bullies that they already are. So a lot of emotional gymnastics have to be made, and still, religious will get anti-com, since their ideologies are also already anti-com. Remember, the ideology is inherently theocracism. And second: would not be a general reaction from any non-com to become rabid anti-com whenever socialism rises already? Doesn’t it happen already? So, how to handle it? And another question, why the special pleading?
I disagree.
Fuck off, do you know what is called in the phylosophical context “muh spirituality”? IDEALISM. THE OPPOSITE OF MATERIALISM. THEY ARE OPPOSITE. THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO MIX, BECAUSE MATERIALISM DENIES SPIRITUALITY, AKA, IDEALISM.
Is it not idealism to suggest that Communists can dismiss religion and religious people in a world where religion is so widespread?
dismissed no its far to dangerous for that but it can certainly be suppressed along side other right wing garbage like fascism
Nice touch how they also dismissed how I am talking about religion being the opposite of Dialectical Materialism, yet changing the subject by changing the meaning of “idealism” to a nice non sequitur, lmao.
As idealist as dismissing fascism, whip I never said to dismiss, but to educate against as communism educates against monarchism, capitalism, feudalism… And THEOCRACIES. “But mu-” shut up, if religion held no political power, explain Vatican, Meka, Tibet, and all the theocracist power and states ruled in all of history. “but muh spiri-” shut up. Why is it something man made and not free from both materialism and dialectics, forced to be considered special and not be regarded as idealist reactionarism a la socdem, nazbol, etc?