Communism & Religion: The bottom line

[PCommie]

Let me make an openning statement on my feelings about what to do with religion: We must wait, wait until we have a fully established communist society. Wait, until the revolutionary turmoil has fully passed. Then, we will see. If the churches are truly going to oppose us, as many claim, then they will have to stand up, before all the people and say:

"This classless, stateless society, in which all are equal, in which all have equal opportunities for life, in which all share in happiness, in which all are part of the decision-making process, this wonderful world, is bad for the people. We should have a society where a few are made rich over others, the poor live in destitution and get poorer, and are forced to work endlessly, producing wealth to ensure that a few stay in a position where they can have the good life while no one else can. That kind of societ would be better than what we have now."

True, religion will oppose revolutionary violence, but that's religion. People will have to get over it. That's why I say wait. If it's really going to go against us, then it will be more easily removed in a communist society where it has to make the above statement, convincing all the people of it's true nature. Keep in mind, I favor organized religion, but if it opposed such a good society, it is obviously no longer holy. This is my point. But even then, it must not be law, but the decision of the people, to remove it.

But if it did not do that, then it would no longer be threat to us, and we could simply ignore it, as I am always advocating. :D

H&S forever,
-PC

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Demolish the lot.

[Random Precision]

I don't think the priests in Spain, 1936, who barricaded their churches against Republican forces and fired on the people outside were exactly waiting for a communist society to voice their objections. Ditto for the Orthodox Church in Russia, 1917.

[PCommie]

I don't think the priests in Spain, 1936, who barricaded their churches against Republican forces and fired on the people outside were exactly waiting for a communist society to voice their objections. Ditto for the Orthodox Church in Russia, 1917.

I had not heard of those events. However, you are citing only two events. It seems to me that most priests would be utterly apalled that a priest would shoot anyone. I speak of churches in general, how it will generally behave.

-PC

[Random Precision]

I had not heard of those events. However, you are citing only two events.

They're the only two genuine revolutionary circumstances that I'm aware of in the 20th century. Also, many priests became soldiers in Franco's army during the Civil War. Some of them were recently beatified by Benedict XVI actually.


I speak of churches in general, how it will generally behave.

I don't believe in any of your options as the correct solutions. Organized religious groups will have to give up all of their wealth. They'll have to give up any institutions they run outside of those devoted specifically to religion- parochial schools, for instance, would be dissolved. And other than that, if they don't act hostilely toward social changes, they may be left alone. I make no guarantees, however, as to the right to free speech immediately after the revolution.

As for waiting for what religious groups in a communist society will do. I don't believe that religion will exist in any meaningful way in a communist society, since the material basis for religion will have been eliminated.

[GracchusBabeuf]

You seem to be confusing communism with writing laws. I don't think communists want to "write laws" to abolish religion. Also, religious leaders don't say:

We should have a society where a few are made rich over others, the poor live in destitution and get poorer, and are forced to work endlessly, producing wealth to ensure that a few stay in a position where they can have the good life while no one else can. That kind of societ would be better than what we have now.No capitalist apologist puts it in such simple terms. They find better words to put their filthy ideas into like:
(T)he feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women [...] encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Demolish the lot.

To elaborate, the space created by demolished places of worship could be put to vastly better uses such as museums, libraries, universities, parks, gardens, allotments, hospitals, schools, and zoos. Such places provide genuine comfort and enlightenment, as opposed to the false comfort and phoney wisdom generated by religious insitutions.

[Chapter 24]

As NoXion's already said, the space used for the various religious places of worship could be used for comemorating or taking part in actual human advancement and development. To say that what takes place at these temples, churches, mosques, etc. is enlightenment for those who really wish to be "spiritually" enlightened. The way I see it is that if one believes in increasing their spirituality, perhaps a mode of worship that does not involve taking up physical space would be more accpetable to the general public. But as far as I see, if someone does want to be "enlightened" in this way, there is no good reason for religious institutions and their respective places of worship to take up collectively-owned property. If religion is treated as an entirely private matter, then why should they be given their own places to be used in a public atmosphere?

[Demogorgon]

Religion should always be legal and people should always have the freedom to associate freely with religious institutions, provided of course that said institutions keep themselves out of the business of society in general. They can voice an opinion certainly, but when they start trying to get involved in governing then there is a problem.

[Sasha]

other; get rid of all laws and organisations ;)

[MikeSC]

I don't think the priests in Spain, 1936, who barricaded their churches against Republican forces and fired on the people outside were exactly waiting for a communist society to voice their objections. Ditto for the Orthodox Church in Russia, 1917.

To be fair, plenty didn't- and you did have ones go against the official church line and help the Republicans.

I personally don't think religion should be particularly acknowledged. The devout aren't gonna cease to be religious because Commies knock down their churches. And you can't tar all religious people with the same brush anyway.

[Invincible Summer]

I don't think all churches/temples etc should be demolished... some of them are really beautiful and could be preserved for their architecture, but used for a different purpose obviously.

[commyrebel]

Ok religion is not bad its people are. the fanatic who try to control and make you believe, eliminate them then it is fine(the more eastern religion don't really do this and they seem more supportive on communism). Plus when you outlaw religion or any right then you are bound to fall.

[PCommie]

The views here all have merit. I must agree most with Demogorgon's post, I suppose. Organized religion is permisible as long as it doesn't cause too much trouble.


other; get rid of all laws and organisations ;)

Invalid. You are saying murder should not be legal or illegal, you are saying we should live in a lawless society. This leads to vigilanteism, an unacceptable form of enforcement. In addition, abolishing all organizations would include the military, leaving a freshly revolutionized nation, or even a long-revolutionized nation, defenseless. Organization is not all bad, it is only when it becomes oppressive.

-PC

[Bud Struggle]

The views here all have merit. I must agree most with Demogorgon's post, I suppose. Organized religion is permisible as long as it doesn't cause too much trouble.
Anyone should be able to do whatever they want to do in any way they want to do it. Who are you or who is anyone to say what organizations I can belong to or what those organizations could say in society?

If yopu can say the Baptists can't have any authority--why can't I say the Trotskists can't have any authority? who the hell is anyone tomake the rules for anyone else. When the communists makes the rules for Churches isn't that the same as when churches made the ruels for Communists?

You are just tearing down one church and setting up another.

[Kappie]

I personally don't think religion should be particularly acknowledged. The devout aren't gonna cease to be religious because Commies knock down their churches. And you can't tar all religious people with the same brush anyway.The Commies in the Soviet Union tried to destroy religion for 70 years in the USSR. The devout continued to be religious (although a lot of people did become non-religious), but the point is no matter how much force is brought to bear there will always be those who continue on in their faith and religiosity. To paraphrase a religious figure, "The religious you will always have with you."

[MikeSC]

The Commies in the Soviet Union tried to destroy religion for 70 years in the USSR. The devout continued to be religious (although a lot of people did become non-religious), but the point is no matter how much force is brought to bear there will always be those who continue on in their faith and religiosity. To paraphrase a religious figure, "The religious you will always have with you."

That's what I was thinking of! And early Christianity as well- people get more devout if they have to do it in secret. And I don't see why society should have a problem with people choosing to be religious in the first place.

To paraphrase Marx- people should have access to both the truth and the lie, so as to accept the truth as a truth, not an obligation. Something like that, can't really remember. Religious people would switch the intended meaning (which is the truth, which is the lie)- that's their business.

Also, that quote up there's not from me (so I won't reply :D)

[ibn Bruce]

To elaborate, the space created by demolished places of worship could be put to vastly better uses such as museums, libraries, universities, parks, gardens, allotments, hospitals, schools, and zoos. Such places provide genuine comfort and enlightenment, as opposed to the false comfort and phoney wisdom generated by religious insitutions.

Indeed, and replace religious celebrations with 'festivals of enlightenment'.. the religious calendar with the calendar of 'nature and reason'.. oh wait, the French revolution already did that.

Seriously, what on earth gives you a mandate to destroy a public religious institution (many being owned communally rather than individually)? No doubt you would complain were Christians to demolish a union hall but because you don't like religion you would think it gives you the right to destroy the history and community associated with such buildings in the name of some idiotic utilitarian 'use the space' justification.

Damn.

[southernmissfan]

I think some people are missing the crucial point that in such a place and time in which communism is/would be established, religion will already be on its way out anyway. To some degree it seems that the significant decline of reactionary, precapitalist beliefs (whether it be racism, sexism, religion, etc.) would be a prerequisite of progressive revolutionary action. Now to say that we must live in a completely secular and culturally progressive world, free of bigotry in order to begin making political/economic progress is an overstatement, but the two are certainly connected. After all, it is hard for workers to unite when they are torn apart by religious, ethnic and other divisions.

Material conditions usually coincide with the culture and nature of people's beliefs. For example, 1917 Russia was vastly underdeveloped and semi-feudal economically, and the mindset of the population typically coincided. You had a state-backed church with a large presence throughout the country and an uneducated and superstitious population. Certainly one can not (or should not at least) consider this to be the reason for failure in Russia, but it seems obvious to me at least that it was a flaw that helped to hold back progress.

EDIT: I forgot to comment on a couple posts about "repression" of religion. Yes, it is true that anytime you ban and/or repress virtually anything that it can and most likely will create resistance and will probably strengthen the resolve of some. But I would say that historically, repression of religion has worked. I saw Russia as an example somewhere. While the figures differ depending on the source, what is pretty certain is that Russia has a very large percentage of nonbelievers. The simple fact is that many Russians grew up in a society where religion was to a great degree (the extent depending on the resolve of whoever was in charge I suppose) kept of out of public life. Unlike many (most?) places in the world, most Russians born after the revolution were not taught religion and taken to church from early childhood on. I'm just speculating here, but I would venture to guess that the average Soviet read, saw or heard hardly anything religious and thus would only really turn to religion if they were curious/seeking some form of outlet or rebellion and consciously decided that believing in this or that religion was a good idea. This is not the only case in history (after all, when was the last time Pagans had any significant influence in Europe?). You can argue over the moral or political implications of repressing religion, but it seems to me that it does work at least to some extent. One has to wonder if the Soviets had actually went further and had really made a strong effort to crush religion how the demographics would look today in Russia.

[Jazzratt]

Indeed, and replace religious celebrations with 'festivals of enlightenment'..

No need to. Simply remove them entirely. People can celebrate whatever they want and do not need religious or government mandate to do so.


the religious calendar with the calendar of 'nature and reason'..

I think that, just as we are moving away from archaic measurements of distance, volume and weight toward more sensible ones so too can we improve the nature of our calendars.


oh wait, the French revolution already did that.

Unsuccessfully, too. It hasn't been the only revolution to introduce measures which failed, it doesn't invalidate those measures.


Seriously, what on earth gives you a mandate to destroy a public religious institution (many being owned communally rather than individually)?

Creation of a new society, we are destroying all that is old and oppressive. THose buildings are a symbol of this and, additionally, are a complete waste of space in their current form.


No doubt you would complain were Christians to demolish a union hall

So? Unlike them I'm not bound by some silly "do unto others" ethos.


but because you don't like religion you would think it gives you the right to destroy the history and community associated with such buildings in the name of some idiotic utilitarian 'use the space' justification.

Yep, I think you're getting the idea. Personally I'd demolish the fuckers and build, well, whatever was most needed by the community in their place but I can understand people wanting to keep them around for their architectural purposes.

Anyway shouldn't you be able to worship without symbols such as buildings and the like, after all "idolatry is worse than carnage".

[swirling_vortex]

Regardless of how many atheists here despise religion, the fact of the matter is that a very solid majority of the world practices some form of religion. To simply state that we should tear down churches to fit some ideological idea would instantly make a lot of enemies. Plus, a lot of churches do charity work and my church often sponsors mission trips to a few individuals that go down and help out other communities in poorer nations like Haiti.

I don't believe that organized religion should hold any political power, but to simply abolish it is just as bad. If we believe in a free society, then it should be the community that decides what to do with religion, not the few opinions of an atheist.

[ckaihatsu]

I don't think all churches/temples etc should be demolished... some of them are really beautiful and could be preserved for their architecture, but used for a different purpose obviously.


Agreed. Now how exactly can we repurpose all of those gory, death-reminder crucifixes??? (And do we *have* to preserve Mel Gibson's movie about the same, for that matter -- ?!)


x D

[ckaihatsu]

The Commies in the Soviet Union tried to destroy religion for 70 years in the USSR. The devout continued to be religious (although a lot of people did become non-religious), but the point is no matter how much force is brought to bear there will always be those who continue on in their faith and religiosity. To paraphrase a religious figure, "The religious you will always have with you."


The best definition of religion that I've ever heard is that 'religion is what you do in your spare time.' By this definition there's no justification for micro-managing people's lives....

But on the other hand, as others have pointed out in this thread, there's no reason that any one kind of mass popular culture should get preferential public / state treatment over any other, as is the case today (tax-free status, tax subsidies, public airwaves, etc.).

That's all religion is, is mass popular culture -- if some people get off on it, so be it, but it shouldn't be considered as authoritative for the purposes of governing, or allowed any other kind of official favoritism.

I agree that repressing it would most likely be counter-productive, from a revolutionary standpoint, so I oppose repression of religion on strictly *pragmatic* grounds.

[MarxSchmarx]

I don't believe that organized religion should hold any political power, but to simply abolish it is just as bad. If we believe in a free society, then it should be the community that decides what to do with religion, not the few opinions of an atheist.So if the community feels religion should be abolished and everybody should be athiests that would be OK with you???


Regardless of how many atheists here despise religion, the fact of the matter is that a very solid majority of the world practices some form of religion. To simply state that we should tear down churches to fit some ideological idea would instantly make a lot of enemies. Plus, a lot of churches do charity work and my church often sponsors mission trips to a few individuals that go down and help out other communities in poorer nations like Haiti.Why can't that help come from secular forces? In fact, if it weren't for secular tax breaks from nominally secular governments like the US and Germany, and secular institutions like the UN to provide the infrastructure for those Jesus-lovers to do their mission, none of this "gospel" would be possible in places like Haiti. I mean, it's been a damned long time since prestor john went out without any backup.


Moreover, but the goal is not to suppress religion, it is to make religion irrelevant. Much like the state. If you think religion will always be with us, think of the city of London or the nation of Japan - both areas ruled by a nominal monarchs that are the head of a major religion, but in effect they are both atheist societies.

[Decolonize The Left]

This question is downright silly. "What should be done?" Who are we, a small group of revolutionaries communicating via an internet forum, to decide what should be done with a huge institution?

The people, in their respective communities, will decide what is to be done. Our concern as revolutionaries in an advanced capitalist society is to raise class consciousness - not to legislate against the future.

- August

[CheFighter777]

Regardless of how many atheists here despise religion, the fact of the matter is that a very solid majority of the world practices some form of religion. To simply state that we should tear down churches to fit some ideological idea would instantly make a lot of enemies. Plus, a lot of churches do charity work and my church often sponsors mission trips to a few individuals that go down and help out other communities in poorer nations like Haiti.

I don't believe that organized religion should hold any political power, but to simply abolish it is just as bad. If we believe in a free society, then it should be the community that decides what to do with religion, not the few opinions of an atheist.

Very sell said!!!

But, many atheist don't give a dam about the 4 Billion plus people of faith throughout the world. In their minds, they see it as bad, and thus they feel they have superior knowledge to all others, and feel the need that they need to rise up and free mankind from religion, being the saviors to the world!!!

This reminds me of Capitalist, who feel the need to rid the world of communism!!!

[MarxSchmarx]

Very sell said!!!


A Freudian slip if I've ever seen one.

[Brother No. 1]

Lets see..why should we allow Orgainzed Religion when it has done many upon countless crimes in humanity's histroy.
Crusades,whitch acussing,buring on cross,the English kings tyranical rule,ect.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I think religion should still be able to exist simply due to the fact that abolishing it completely could infringe upon individual rights. However, there will be strict changes made to the system. There will be no public displays or worship. It will all be done in the privacy of your own home. There will also absolutely be NO preaching. However, even if these rules are set in place I doubt religion will last very long in a Communist society anyway. People will realize that they no longer have a need to rely on the divine to fill an empty gap in their lives or whatever it is drawing them to it in the first place. People won't be so desperate to get out of poverty that they have to pray to some false god because there won't be poverty or oppression.

[swirling_vortex]

Very sell said!!!

But, many atheist don't give a dam about the 4 Billion plus people of faith throughout the world. In their minds, they see it as bad, and thus they feel they have superior knowledge to all others, and feel the need that they need to rise up and free mankind from religion, being the saviors to the world!!!

This reminds me of Capitalist, who feel the need to rid the world of communism!!!
To be fair, atheists do have a point. For thousands of years, humans have often turned to superstition to explain natural events and people in power have used that to control them. In terms of our entire history, it's only been very recently that our mathematical abilities have allowed us to explain the unexplainable. That's why I get angry when someone like the Pope claims that people who have AIDS are somehow being punished.

But I also disagree that communism will simply make all of it irrelevant. As a left communist, I believe the ideal society focuses on decentralization of power at all levels, including breaking down structures like the Vatican. But to simply say that it will fade away is a bit of a stretch, especially since we haven't even reached a long term ideal communist society. Religion certainly didn't disappear under the Soviet Union and China, it simply went underground. I believe the best solution is to let people explore their options and let them decide what to believe. The only thing that's really incompatible is the power structure over government (like faith based government handouts and tax breaks).

So if the community feels religion should be abolished and everybody should be athiests that would be OK with you???
A bit of a straw man argument, but if that's what it came down to, then I wouldn't have a problem. Although I find it a bit difficult to get people to abolish an idea of something.

Why can't that help come from secular forces? In fact, if it weren't for secular tax breaks from nominally secular governments like the US and Germany, and secular institutions like the UN to provide the infrastructure for those Jesus-lovers to do their mission, none of this "gospel" would be possible in places like Haiti. I mean, it's been a damned long time since prestor john went out without any backup.
I never said it had to be specifically religious help, but don't be so quick to undermine charity work from a religious organization. Could the aid be given if the favors were taken away? Quite possibly. But it's certainly better than nothing.

Moreover, but the goal is not to suppress religion, it is to make religion irrelevant. Much like the state. If you think religion will always be with us, think of the city of London or the nation of Japan - both areas ruled by a nominal monarchs that are the head of a major religion, but in effect they are both atheist societies.
Again, I differentiate between the idea and the power structure. The former is fine, but the latter is what's causing the problems.

[MarxSchmarx]

I never said it had to be specifically religious help, but don't be so quick to undermine charity work from a religious organization. Could the aid be given if the favors were taken away? Quite possibly. But it's certainly better than nothing.From my understanding of the tax codes of western (well, anglo-saxon) countries, the view is that "unless proven otherwise we assume all contributions to religions are cheritable". I know it also works like this in countries outside the "anglo-sphere" like Israel and Japan.



So if the community feels religion should be abolished and everybody should be athiests that would be OK with you??? A bit of a straw man argument, but if that's what it came down to, then I wouldn't have a problem. Although I find it a bit difficult to get people to abolish an idea of something.Actually that's what the Spanish inquisition was basically about.


Again, I differentiate between the idea and the power structure. The former is fine, but the latter is what's causing the problems.Well that's all well and good, but there is no place where "the idea" lives on but the power structure doesn't. Instead, in most places, destruction of the power structure has required destruction of the idea. At least, let me put it this way, without the power structures the "ideas" would "whither away".

[TC]

Belief in god isn't good or bad, its simply incorrect.

Organized religion, like all social phenomenon, needs to be evaluated by way of its material affect. When it helps to stabilize and crystalize the ideologies that justify oppressive social orders, it should be undermined. When it helps to crystalize ideologies that allow people to act in their collective self interests against oppressive social orders, it would be intellectually dishonest to encourage it, but its a wasted effort to undermine it when its not undermining human emancipation.