[omegaword]

A basic communist principle is that religion is in many cases a tool of repression by backwards, anti change forces. Therefore it is our duty as communist to eventually do away with religion. But at the same time, if our goal is truly liberation and the freedom to be a true individual, do we have the responsibility to allow people the freedom tobelieve what they want? I know in the Soviet Union and other marxist-leninist countries the government took a very aggressive stance. I would like a short analysis of whether an aggressive or patient stance is best.

[Dagoth Ur]

First off communists do not deal in "principals". Marx's opposition to religion was because of the social role the Church and other clerical organizations were playing at the time (and to smaller but still significant degree today). So our goal isn't so much destroying religion, which is a pointless battle as worthless ideas die of their own accord when left without the ability to enforce themselves, but to remove religion fully from its current bourgeois role to its new socialist role.

[omegaword]

I understand that, my question is how aggressively should communism deal with religion? Also what's wrong with calling core communist ideals, principles?

[anna]

So our goal isn't so much destroying religion, which is a pointless battle as worthless ideas die of their own accord when left without the ability to enforce themselves, but to remove religion fully from its current bourgeois role to its new socialist role.

It's a pointless battle not because religion is worthless, but because one's faith in a higher power cannot be destroyed by the state without his or her consent. Outward manifestation of faith may be thwarted by brute force, but the human spirit is remarkably resilient and what the state cannot see, it cannot destroy if the spirit does not allow it. Thus, ultimate victory remains beyond the grasp of the state, since the final end for a person of faith is not of this world and the state cannot advance beyond this one.

[Bounce]

The State is the primary teacher of the citizen and allows the propagation of religion. Without this allowance how would religion grow or remain across generations?

[anna]

The State is the primary teacher of the citizen and allows the propagation of religion. Without this allowance how would religion grow or remain across generations?

The state is not the primary teacher.

Religion is one of several primary influences, often the ultimate one; the state knows this, and that's why it wants to eliminate the competition.

[Dagoth Ur]

The institutions and traditions could only actually be eradicated if you had a worldwide governance anyways so who cares if people continue to believe then? Also even if successful we really haven't examined, in a scientific way, why humans choose to believe in gods and such so we can't say that new faith systems won't spring up in the vacuum.

I understand that, my question is how aggressively should communism deal with religion? Also what's wrong with calling core communist ideals, principles?

I'd object to calling communist programmes ideals or principals becaise both of these terms denote a detachment from materialism. In this case claiming that communists support anything other than what is materially demanded.

To your first question my answer is most aggressively. Not violently of course (excepting those religious elements which base their ideologies on overt anticommunism) but still very aggressive. We have to even go so far as funding loyal religious institutions and their clergies.

[omegaword]

It's a pointless battle not because religion is worthless, but because one's faith in a higher power cannot be destroyed by the state without his or her consent. Outward manifestation of faith may be thwarted by brute force, but the human spirit is remarkably resilient and what the state cannot see, it cannot destroy if the spirit does not allow it. Thus, ultimate victory remains beyond the grasp of the state, since the final end for a person of faith is not of this world and the state cannot advance beyond this one.

If you look at religion demographics of Russia, a country which was once completely religious, and see the huge numbers of atheists you'll know that's not true.

[anna]

If you look at religion demographics of Russia, a country which was once completely religious, and see the huge numbers of atheists you'll know that's not true.

13% is a huge number?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_Russia

Religion in Russia (2012)
Russian Orthodox (41%)
Muslim (6.5%)
Unaffiliated Christian (4.1%)
Other Orthodox (1.5%)
Neopagan and Tengrist (1.2%)
Tibetan Buddhist (0.5%)
Other religions (1.7%)
Spiritual but not religious (25%)
Atheist and non-religious (13%)
Undecided (5.5%)


How Russians survived militant atheism to embrace God
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Wal ... mbrace-God

Sometimes really huge news stories occur that receive almost no notice, but they are seismic just the same. Today, less than 20 years after the collapse of the officially atheistic Soviet Union, Russia has emerged as the most God-believing nation in Europe, more so than Roman Catholic Italy or Protestant Britain. The independent Public Opinion Fund poll discovered this spring that 82 percent of Russians now say they are religious believers.



(Question: Is there a way to embed URLs in text? )

[Bounce]

The state is not the primary teacher.

Religion is one of several primary influences, often the ultimate one; the state knows this, and that's why it wants to eliminate the competition.

I'd argue it is. The State has the ability to be much more coercive than any church, and really controls the formative education of all citizens.

[anna]

I'd argue it is. The State has the ability to be much more coercive than any church, and really controls the formative education of all citizens.

You underestimate the power of human dynamics.

Family, human relationships outside the family structure, religion and culture wield far more clout than the state.

[Travesty]

Religion in Russia

Church Attendance:

Figures on church attendance are sketchy, since the Russian Orthodox Church keeps no membership rolls or parish registers. According to Nikolai Mitrokhin, a historian and critic of the church, about 60 percent of Russians today identify themselves as Orthodox—they may be baptized, married, and buried in the church—but less than one percent actually enter a church at least once a month. Other sources put the figure closer to 10 percent.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/ ... ann-text/4

Survey conducted in 2012 pointed out that church attendance in Russia is 3-4%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_attendance

[Dagoth Ur]

@anna:

Code: Select all[url=http://soviet-empire.com/]Soviet-Empire[/url]

Soviet-Empire

[anna]

@anna:

Code: Select all[url=http://soviet-empire.com/]Soviet-Empire[/url]

Soviet-Empire

Thank you!

[The Immortal Goon]

First, Stalin went to seminary school. Not unusual for the time and place, but he abolished the League of the Godless, was "all in" for putting laws in place to appease church values—regulating marriage in a traditional way, getting rid of divorce for women, making abortion virtually illegal, making homosexuality illegal, promoting women as baby-machines, all the stuff that the Bolsheviks deliberately snuffed out Stalin eagerly put into place as quick as he could.

When the Germans went to war with Russia, Stalin rehabilitated the Russian Orthodox Church, and the church gave Stalin the title, "the divinely anointed ruler," which is laughably un-socialist. But since he said he created socialism, despite it not arising out of capitalism, we all have to tip-toe around that and say it may have been, as "the divinely anointed ruler" said so.

Regardless, the point is that it's not really true to say that the Soviet Union was atheist—especially after Stalin bent over and smilingly reversed soviet reforms to make reactionaries happy.

Not that I think there need be a militant atheist bent to socialism. I agree with Connolly on most things:

Modern Socialism, in fact, as it exists in the minds of its leading exponents, and as it is held and worked for by an increasing number of enthusiastic adherents throughout the civilised world, has an essentially material, matter-of-fact foundation. We do not mean that its supporters are necessarily materialists in the vulgar, and merely anti-theological, sense of the term, but that they do not base their Socialism upon any interpretation of the language or meaning of Scripture, nor upon the real or supposed intentions of a beneficent Deity. They as a party neither affirm or deny those things, but leave it to the individual conscience of each member to determine what beliefs on such questions they shall hold. As a political party they wisely prefer to take their stand upon the actual phenomena of social life as they can be observed in operation amongst us to-day, or as they can be traced in the recorded facts of history. If any special interpretation of the meanings of Scripture tends to influence human thought in the direction of Socialism, or is found to be on a plane with the postulates of Socialist doctrine, then the scientific Socialist considers that the said interpretation is stronger because of its identity with the teachings of Socialism, but he does not necessarily believe that Socialism is stronger, or its position more impregnable, because of its theological ally. He realises that the facts upon which his Socialist faith are based are strong enough in themselves to withstand every shock, and attacks from every quarter, and therefore while he is at all times willing to accept help from every extraneous source, he will only accept it on one condition, viz., that he is not to be required in return to identify his cause with any other whose discomfiture might also involve Socialism in discredit. This is the main reason why Socialists fight shy of theological dogmas and religions generally: because we feel that Socialism is based upon a series of facts requiring only unassisted human reason to grasp and master all their details, whereas Religion of every kind is admittedly based upon ‘faith’ in the occurrence in past ages of a series of phenomena inexplicable by any process of mere human reasoning. Obviously, therefore, to identify Socialism with Religion would be to abandon at once that universal, non-sectarian character which to-day we find indispensable to working-class unity, as it would mean that our members would be required to conform to one religious creed, as well as to one specific economic faith – a course of action we have no intention of entering upon as it would inevitably entangle us in the disputes of the warring sects of the world, and thus lead to the disintegration of the Socialist Party.

Socialism, as a party, bases itself upon its knowledge of facts, of economic truths, and leaves the building up of religious ideals or faiths to the outside public, or to its individual members if they so will. It is neither Freethinker nor Christian, Turk nor Jew, Buddhist nor Idolator, Mahommedan nor Parsee – it is only human.

[Poelmo]

An enlightened society should allow religion to exist but separate the state from the church (including all state funding), not allow religion-based schools and universities, grant full freedom from religion and prohibit laws that are solely (or mainly) based in religion. The fight has to be against organized religion, not all forms of spirituality because some people couldn't stop believing in such things if they wanted to and a lot of people would fall into instant and irreparable depression without spirituality.

[omegaword]

13% is a huge number?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_Russia

Religion in Russia (2012)
Russian Orthodox (41%)
Muslim (6.5%)
Unaffiliated Christian (4.1%)
Other Orthodox (1.5%)
Neopagan and Tengrist (1.2%)
Tibetan Buddhist (0.5%)
Other religions (1.7%)
Spiritual but not religious (25%)
Atheist and non-religious (13%)
Undecided (5.5%)


How Russians survived militant atheism to embrace God
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Wal ... mbrace-God

Sometimes really huge news stories occur that receive almost no notice, but they are seismic just the same. Today, less than 20 years after the collapse of the officially atheistic Soviet Union, Russia has emerged as the most God-believing nation in Europe, more so than Roman Catholic Italy or Protestant Britain. The independent Public Opinion Fund poll discovered this spring that 82 percent of Russians now say they are religious believers.



(Question: Is there a way to embed URLs in text? )

My statement about "huge number of atheists" is more relative. Relative to pre soviet Russia, it is large. And Russia has millions of people so 13 percent is a lot of people. More accurate would perhaps be to say that the soviet era led to a major reduction in religousness in Russia, as others in the thread have said.

[anna]

And Russia has millions of people so 13 percent is a lot of people. More accurate would perhaps be to say that the soviet era led to a major reduction in religousness in Russia, as others in the thread have said.

Whether 13% is 10 people or 10 million people, it's still 13%.

And the reduction and later resurgence shows that religion was forced underground and when repression was lifted it sprang back to life.

Now granted, affiliation isn't the same as regular practice, that's understood regardless of the country in question.

[omegaword]

You are correct. But beyond doubt is that both atheism and general lack of observance are higher due to the soviet era.

[anna]

You are correct.

Of course I am.

But beyond doubt is that both atheism and general lack of observance are higher due to the soviet era.

Which goes back to what I said upthread:

It's a pointless battle not because religion is worthless, but because one's faith in a higher power cannot be destroyed by the state without his or her consent. Outward manifestation of faith may be thwarted by brute force, but the human spirit is remarkably resilient and what the state cannot see, it cannot destroy if the spirit does not allow it. Thus, ultimate victory remains beyond the grasp of the state, since the final end for a person of faith is not of this world and the state cannot advance beyond this one.