Religion

[thinkerOFthoughts]

I'm sorry if similar questions have been asked before. I know religion gets in the way of MANY things. My question however is, is it possible to keep religion in a communist society? If there is to be freedom of the individual then it would only seem to follow that as long as it doesn't begin to split society then religion can actually stay? Humans are naturally superstitious (as can be observed threw ALL time we have been around) so I just wonder what you guys view for this.

[F9]

No one is gonna say to you what you believe to..No churches probably wont exist, maybe after some years where the needs of the people are settled, some people decide to make churches things to pray etc etc, but after revolution churches will probably be used to house people.
But beside that, communism is your freedom, its your choices, so no one is going to force you not to believe anywhere.

Fuserg9:star:

[LOLseph Stalin]

Religion should not be forced on people or people shouldn't be persecuted because of their beliefs. I say let people believe whatever they want, but separation of church and state should be strongly enforced. This would include no preaching.

[Seodanrot]

Religion and faith do not belong in the law making process. Religion can take away the rights and freedom of the people depending on the dogma it may carry.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Religion should not be forced on people or people shouldn't be persecuted because of their beliefs. I say let people believe whatever they want, but separation of church and state should be strongly enforced. This would include no preaching.Yes, some people believe that religion can't exist in a communist society and I agree that religion as we know it now probably won't. Religion is used as a tool of oppression in class societies, but it also attempts to answer questions that are not immediately solvable by science. So religion in agricultural societies teneded to focus on why crops fail or unexpected weather occours but didn't really care about other social concerns like what makes someone saved or not. Later, as towns developed, religion had a lot more to say about social interations and what makes someone "good" or "moral".

Communism will mean that religion will probably not be used to answer questions about science or social interation since there will be no need of a ruling class morality to make sure the population is kept in line. However, freedom and equality will not answer question people have about what happens after we die or where a "soul" comes from, so I think some kind of spiritual beliefs will remain.

[Old Man Diogenes]

I agree with most of my Comrades on this post, especially Fuserg9, I would not tell people that religion is banned just the same as I wouldn't enforce a religion on them, if we revolt for freedom, we also revolt for religious freedom. But people may become more skeptical of the world after the revolution and as they doubted the State and other authority, they may begin to doubt religious authority. I also agree that religion would be different significantly to how it is today.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

I think that religion will still exist (though to a lesser extent) because people are spiritual beings and, as Gravedigger said, people will always ask the Big Questions such as 'where did we come from, what is the meaning of life?' and in some cases religion can provide the answers. I don't think there will be anything like the mass-scale organised religious groups though, and instead religion will be something far more individual and unique to each person, as opposed to a group of adherents who are merely following a rigid code. Religion should be allowed, but there should NEVER be any forced indoctrination and I agree with complete separation between religion and the state. Religion should not have the power to change laws, create faith schools or interfere with the way things are run.

[mel]

No one is gonna say to you what you believe to..No churches probably wont exist, maybe after some years where the needs of the people are settled, some people decide to make churches things to pray etc etc, but after revolution churches will probably be used to house people.
But beside that, communism is your freedom, its your choices, so no one is going to force you not to believe anywhere.

Fuserg9:star:

Churches wouldn't make very good houses, and I don't see any reason people shouldn't be allowed a building which they use and occupy to gather for prayer. When they aren't being used, they can and should be allowed to be used as recreational facilities for community children or for quiet places of study, but I see no reason all churches should be converted into housing (most wouldn't really be suitable for it) or knocked down.

[F9]

Churches wouldn't make very good houses, and I don't see any reason people shouldn't be allowed a building which they use and occupy to gather for prayer. When they aren't being used, they can and should be allowed to be used as recreational facilities for community children or for quiet places of study, but I see no reason all churches should be converted into housing (most wouldn't really be suitable for it) or knocked down.

Why wouldnt be?When i have people on the streets, i wont let a church open for people going to pray...They can pray in their houses, the persons are first, and those spiritual shit they can do it anywhere..Churches can be an excellent house for some people, of course they would need some modifications but nonetheless, it has a roof, walls, the others are easy to be build-bring.

Fuserg9:star:

[teenagebricks]

I agree, churches should serve as community and hospitality centres as well as a place of worship for those who choose to do so. A church should be a place where people help each other.

[mel]

Why wouldnt be?When i have people on the streets, i wont let a church open for people going to pray...They can pray in their houses, the persons are first, and those spiritual shit they can do it anywhere..Churches can be an excellent house for some people, of course they would need some modifications but nonetheless, it has a roof, walls, the others are easy to be build-bring.

Fuserg9:star:

Most churches have stained glass windows and many have a gymnasium. Some don't have good insulation, many are very old and lacking in modern conveniences, and when proper houses are taken out of the ownership of banks, there should be more than enough room for most people without converting churches. They were designed as places for people to gather and most could be used both as churches and as community centers. The church can continue to gather there and operate it, and other members of the community can use it when the church is not.

[F9]

Most churches have stained glass windows and many have a gymnasium. Some don't have good insulation, many are very old and lacking in modern conveniences, and when proper houses are taken out of the ownership of banks, there should be more than enough room for most people without converting churches. They were designed as places for people to gather and most could be used both as churches and as community centers. The church can continue to gather there and operate it, and other members of the community can use it when the church is not.

Most churches down here are better than lots of houses.Its a speculation that homes will be enough, if they wont be though, would you let people on the streets without houses, would you let a 5 member family in a one room house etc?

Fuserg9:star:

[mel]

Most churches down here are better than lots of houses.Its a speculation that homes will be enough, if they wont be though, would you let people on the streets without houses, would you let a 5 member family in a one room house etc?

Fuserg9:star:

I find it difficult to believe that existing houses and apartments will not be enough, especially if massive mansions are converted into apartment buildings and all of the condos rented out as "timeshares" allowed to be occupied, hotels can be converted into apartment buildings, motels into permanent condos, etc. etc. etc. before there is any need for churches to be turned into housing.

I also think that before buildings that would be better suited as community centers are converted we ought to build up new houses on land that are specifically designed for that purpose, or do you speculate that resources will be too scarce even after all of the structures designed for people to live in are converted into housing first?

The only reason to convert churches before other accommodations already designed for human habitation is a bias against churches and religion, and I sincerely doubt that after all the apartment buildings, hotels, empty houses, and motels are turned into permanent residences there will be any reason to put in all the extra labor to make a church a suitable house.

[F9]

I find it difficult to believe that existing houses and apartments will not be enough, especially if massive mansions are converted into apartment buildings and all of the condos rented out as "timeshares" allowed to be occupied, hotels can be converted into apartment buildings, motels into permanent condos, etc. etc. etc. before there is any need for churches to be turned into housing.

I also think that before buildings that would be better suited as community centers are converted we ought to build up new houses on land that are specifically designed for that purpose, or do you speculate that resources will be too scarce even after all of the structures designed for people to live in are converted into housing first?

The only reason to convert churches before other accommodations already designed for human habitation is a bias against churches and religion, and I sincerely doubt that after all the apartment buildings, hotels, empty houses, and motels are turned into permanent residences there will be any reason to put in all the extra labor to make a church a suitable house.

That sounds nice, and well thought, but is not what going to happen.Simply because there is going to be after-war, after revolution.Lots of damages will occur, but we all know that state powers wont attack churches.Lots of buildings will be destroyed, lots will be near the collapse time, i dont deny that now we have plenty of room to house everyone and have spare room, but after a war i think that our "limits are getting closer".
Anw you for one more time you didnt answer my question and got it threw a different path..

Fuserg9:star:

[mel]

That sounds nice, and well thought, but is not what going to happen.Simply because there is going to be after-war, after revolution.Lots of damages will occur, but we all know that state powers wont attack churches.Lots of buildings will be destroyed, lots will be near the collapse time, i dont deny that now we have plenty of room to house everyone and have spare room, but after a war i think that our "limits are getting closer".
Anw you for one more time you didnt answer my question and got it threw a different path..

Fuserg9:star:

If it comes down to a person living in a church or living on the street, of course we can all agree that the people should be allowed to live in the church. However, if the damage is as extensive as you say, the death toll might just be close enough to match. Even if it isn't, housing people in a church should be a temporary solution and after the war-time period, when resources once again become plentiful people should be moved out of churches and community centers and back into structures designed for and more appropriate for housing.

I still think that fixing damaged buildings already designed for housing needs (depending on the extent of the damage) would most like be easier, cheaper, and faster than re-purposing a church for housing needs, and in some cases, it would be even easier (and certainly more beneficial in the long-run) to build a new house or housing complex in place of an old one than to repurpose a church for that purpose, depending on the type of church and how old it is.

[Black Sheep]

I'm sorry if similar questions have been asked before. I know religion gets in the way of MANY things. My question however is, is it possible to keep religion in a communist society? If there is to be freedom of the individual then it would only seem to follow that as long as it doesn't begin to split society then religion can actually stay? Humans are naturally superstitious (as can be observed threw ALL time we have been around) so I just wonder what you guys view for this.
The question is WHY do you ask if religion will be OK?Religion is not 'an abused system in capitalism, which in communism it would be ok', it is inherently and idealistic and eventually harmful way of thinking.

Humans are not 'naturally' superstitious - ignorant humans tend to be.
Educated humans / humans trained into scientific thinking will not be superstitious, but pursue the logical answer to everything they do not know, instead of running to superstition like desperate children.


Instead of trying to figure out ways to fit in religion / theism in a communist society, try to shake off that idealistic garbage to begin with. :)

[teenagebricks]

Kind of pointless really if you ask me, if the church was given less power inside and out of politics, then it would be harmless anyway, trying to convert people to atheism is just resorting to the same tactics as the church did when it was the oppressor. I think it would be better just to let people believe whatever they want, in a real egalitarian society, the church would not be able to cause the damage it has in the past.

[CommunityBeliever]

Religious delusions will be eliminated by opening peoples minds up to science and technology not by any war, violence will only make religion stronger. We can already see the signs of religions downfall, with some 16% of the world that doesn't believe in any sort of religion and books like the god delusion that present atheism to the masses. The god delusion is what made me stop being religious and there are many many others.

We need things like the god delusion to peacefully present atheism to the masses and we need to convince people of evolution and the big bang so that people do not believe that god had any effect on the universe that way they will start to realize that maybe he does not exist at all. We also should also organize to give free food to people that way there won't be that reason to go to religions for that. Right now peoples busy lifestyle also means many people do not bother to go to Churches or Temples on Sundays and we should leave them no reason to.

I think atheism might be what ends up opening up people's minds to our movement and what helps motivate people more towards communism, but if there is a society that has a revolution then I think that we don't need to kill all the religious people because that wouldn't work. I also think that we should not shut down Churches if people are still using them, although temporarily discontinuing churches during the revolution is okay.

In a communist society we should make it required for every single child to learn how many different religions there are and the history of how America got to be christain (by killing everybody that didn't agree) and how 3000 years ago everybody believed in Zeus and now nobody does anymore. Children should have to learn how the universe actually works, they should have an entire course on just evolution and they should learn the big bang and understand that there is no God affecting this universe. If people still want to have religious delusions after that go ahead but we will not let you acquire any more land to build Churches or Cemeteries.

I think we should certainly shut down Cemeteries as soon as possible those would be a good place to build over and build new houses. Cemeteries are such a waste of space and we should cremate like they do in India. In India with a billion people if they didn't cremate them when they died there wouldn't be any room for people because Cemeteries would fill up the entire country so this Cemeteries thing is stupid.

[mel]

Religious delusions will be eliminated by opening peoples minds up to science and technology not by any war, violence will only make religion stronger. We can already see the signs of religions downfall, with some 16% of the world that doesn't believe in any sort of religion and books like the god delusion that present atheism to the masses. The god delusion is what made me stop being religious and there are many many others.

We need things like the god delusion to peacefully present atheism to the masses and we need to convince people of evolution and the big bang so that people do not believe that god had any effect on the universe that way they will start to realize that maybe he does not exist at all. We also should also organize to give free food to people that way there won't be that reason to go to religions for that. Right now peoples busy lifestyle also means many people do not bother to go to Churches or Temples on Sundays and we should leave them no reason to.

I think atheism might be what ends up opening up people's minds to our movement and what helps motivate people more towards communism, but if there is a society that has a revolution then I think that we don't need to kill all the religious people because that wouldn't work. I also think that we should not shut down Churches if people are still using them, although temporarily discontinuing churches during the revolution is okay.

In a communist society we should make it required for every single child to learn how many different religions there are and the history of how America got to be christain (by killing everybody that didn't agree) and how 3000 years ago everybody believed in Zeus and now nobody does anymore. Children should have to learn how the universe actually works, they should have an entire course on just evolution and they should learn the big bang and understand that there is no God affecting this universe. If people still want to have religious delusions after that go ahead but we will not let you acquire any more land to build Churches or Cemeteries.

I think we should certainly shut down Cemeteries as soon as possible those would be a good place to build over and build new houses. Cemeteries are such a waste of space and we should cremate like they do in India. In India with a billion people if they didn't cremate them when they died there wouldn't be any room for people because Cemeteries would fill up the entire country so this Cemeteries thing is stupid.

You can believe and think all of those things, but I sincerely doubt you will be able to eradicate religion through rational argument and I don't see why you should really give a fuck anyway.

Who are you to say that a person can't believe whatever the fuck they want so long as that belief does not translate itself into harmful action? There are many for whom religion is a deeply fulfilling component of their lives, and I see no reason these people should be forced to stop believing in God or Zeus or whoever the fuck they want to as long as they do not harm others. I also see no reason they should not be allowed to gather in prayer and discussion.

[Vahanian]

You can believe and think all of those things, but I sincerely doubt you will be able to eradicate religion through rational argument and I don't see why you should really give a fuck anyway.

Who are you to say that a person can't believe whatever the fuck they want so long as that belief does not translate itself into harmful action? There are many for whom religion is a deeply fulfilling component of their lives, and I see no reason these people should be forced to stop believing in God or Zeus or whoever the fuck they want to as long as they do not harm others. I also see no reason they should not be allowed to gather in prayer and discussion.

:confused:
maybe if you read into his argument you might have noticed this:


If people still want to have religious delusions after that go ahead but we will not let you acquire any more land to build Churches or Cemeteries.

he not saying that people wouldn't be allowed to still believe in there own invisible person in the sky he saying you don't get you own huge, expensive building to advertise your beliefs.

[mel]

he not saying that people wouldn't be allowed to still believe in there own invisible person in the sky he saying you don't get you own huge, expensive building to advertise your beliefs.

Why not? What if the church outgrows their current meeting place. They should not be allowed to find a larger one? If one is not available they should not be allowed to build one? These churches can serve as a lot more than just a church anyway. Even churches under capitalism often use the space for making free meals for the community, taking donations of food and clothes and giving them to families in need, and often times as low-cost daycare centers for parents of children who need them looked after during the day.

A new church could be used for all of this and more, it would not just be a church but a community center, where like-minded people can gather to celebrate, give to one another, and yes, pray if they so choose. I see nothing wrong with that.

I'm not sure how I feel about cemeteries, there are a lot of valid reasons for a cemetery to exist and it's not a wholly religious thing. There is something nice about having a grave, someplace you can go to honor the memory of people who were important to you or your family.

[CommunityBeliever]

I sincerely doubt you will be able to eradicate religion through rational argument

What are you saying religion will be with us forever? We sure as hell are not going to get rid of religion by violence there is too many of them and besides that violence will strengthen their cause. The only thing we can do is educate people and try to make all the good things about the Churches obsolete. You do realize that tons of countries in the world still teach religion in their public schools and if we present rational arguments to them and make them seperate church and state then we are going to make serious progress towards ridding humanity of delusion.


I don't see why you should really give a fuck anyway.

Well Religions are a waste of time and human energy that could be put to science besides that the religious institutions make tons of money like the scientologists and they are very corrupt they only give back a small amount to the world while they waste 95% of what they are given so ya that is why I care about religion.


Why not? What if the church outgrows their current meeting place. They should not be allowed to find a larger one?

Well if they are growing so much then we have apparently failed at presenting the rational arguments and besides that history shows that the way religion spreads is through oppression, look at how christainity came to America, the conquistadors killed millions of native Americans to spread christainity. We should not let religion continue to grow with their murderous conquests. We should not let religion continue to spread delusions and lies to people.


Even churches under capitalism often use the space for making free meals for the community, taking donations of food and clothes and giving them to families in need, and often times as low-cost daycare centers for parents of children who need them looked after during the day.

Which is why the atheists in our current capitalist society should organize and prepare meals for the public and similar things to make the religions completely obsolete that way nobody will be attracted to them. People who are atheists won't have to lie to themselves to go to a religious place just for food which happens all too often.


I'm not sure how I feel about cemeteries, there are a lot of valid reasons for a cemetery to exist and it's not a wholly religious thing. There is something nice about having a grave, someplace you can go to honor the memory of people who were important to you or your family.

Well I propose that we do cremation like they do in India and have done for thousands of years. This burying people thing started with the Egyptians but they didn't do it on a massive scale just for royalty they have only been doing this on a massive scale for a small amount of time because otherwise there would be so many tombstones that it would be literally ridiculous. In India with a billion people in a such a small place if they had cemeteries for all the people dying there then they could fill up the entire country and their would be no room for people to live. Seriously they have been cremating for 5,000 years or longer in India and that is the only sustainable way of dying!

If you want to remember people wikipedia tends to do a pretty good job of that, in fact you can establish a digital cemetry that covers all the humans that have ever lived on Earth and keep it in a single room and you could even include their biographies. We need the land wasted by cemeteries to house people, to grow food for people, and because the plants that could grow ther could be very good for the air and the environment. Human beings might not be around that much longer if we do not stop doing stupid things like cemeteries and start to take care of the environment.

[BabylonHoruv]

Religion should not be forced on people or people shouldn't be persecuted because of their beliefs. I say let people believe whatever they want, but separation of church and state should be strongly enforced. This would include no preaching.

When there is no state separation of church and state seems irrelevant.

What in the world do you mean by no preaching? No ministers? Or do you mean no evangelists?

I can't agree at all with either approach, a minister is someone who has spent their time studying theological issues, there is no reason they should be prevented from interpreting the writings of religious figures for others. And although evangelists can be quite annoying at times everyone benefits from being exposed to other beliefs, including the evangelist in many cases. if your ideas are not strong enough to stand up to someone else trying to preach at you, they need to be re-examined.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

If people still want to have religious delusions after that go ahead but we will not let you acquire any more land to build Churches or Cemeteries.


Ahhh yes I see!!! so now the Religious folks will be the oppressed! :thumbup1: [/sarcasm] In a truly free society....you cant bar them fron getting more land or churches...if you do that...then you just split up society AGAIN just in a new way.

[Seodanrot]

Kind of pointless really if you ask me, if the church was given less power inside and out of politics, then it would be harmless anyway, trying to convert people to atheism is just resorting to the same tactics as the church did when it was the oppressor. I think it would be better just to let people believe whatever they want, in a real egalitarian society, the church would not be able to cause the damage it has in the past.

You don't convert to Atheism because atheism is not a religion it's simply a lack of a belief in the divine or skepticism. They don't trying to convert people but what they do a lot is to convince people to read their fucking because it's said to be the first step to skepticism.

[Seodanrot]

Ahhh yes I see!!! so now the Religious folks will be the oppressed! :thumbup1: [/sarcasm] In a truly free society....you cant bar them from getting more land or churches...if you do that...then you just split up society AGAIN just in a new way.

They don't need to be oppressed but they really don't belong on the political table or the law making process even tho it would be fair to oppress them seeing how they have oppressed societies for many years. The best we can do it to keep them out of public office. The whole separation of church and state.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

They don't need to be oppressed but they really don't belong on the political table or the law making process even tho it would be fair to oppress them seeing how they have oppressed societies for many years. The best we can do it to keep them out of public office. The whole separation of church and state.
Ok umm....what public office is there in a Communist society? What separation of Church and State would there be....if there is NO state? Unless you mean that when a small community gets together to decide something suddenly a religios person loses some of his rights? of cours I don't think you mean that ;) but I'm just pointing out...your seperation of church and state thing doesn't work. Two wrongs dont make a right Seo...... and as you talk about this oppressed thing...I see you are speaking of "Christianity" and yes...there was opression...but the goal of Communism is the END of oppression...not the new redistribution of it.

[Seodanrot]

When there is no state separation of church and state seems irrelevant.

What in the world do you mean by no preaching? No ministers? Or do you mean no evangelists?

I can't agree at all with either approach, a minister is someone who has spent their time studying theological issues, there is no reason they should be prevented from interpreting the writings of religious figures for others. And although evangelists can be quite annoying at times everyone benefits from being exposed to other beliefs, including the evangelist in many cases. if your ideas are not strong enough to stand up to someone else trying to preach at you, they need to be re-examined.

I don't know about you comrade but I really hate it when one of those christian nutcases comes to my door early in the morning on my days off trying to preach their evil book as the "Good news" when clearly it's not. I do think that we can all do with less of that bullshit to be quite honest preaching should stay within their own temples/churches not people's doors and certainly not on t.v. Which to me when I see some of these nutcases trying sell something they claim as holy or a miracle make item I see a scam and these people belong behind bars yet in today society that can get away with ripping people off by taking advantage of their faith. It all either needs to by stopped or they need to be watch and regulated like the big corrupt corporations in the world for unfair tactics.

[CommunityBeliever]

Ahhh yes I see!!! so now the Religious folks will be the oppressed! [/sarcasm] In a truly free society....you cant bar them fron getting more land or churches...if you do that...then you just split up society AGAIN just in a new way.

Not really, I do not think we will be oppressing religion, we are not being violent on anybody we are not shutting down their churches so in fact we are giving them a lot of freedom to exist. I just think we should seperate church and state so they have nothing do with the government.

Anyways lets just take a hypothetical situation: Scientoligists, Hindus, Christains, Buddhists, Muslims, and Jews all want a particular piece of land and they propose to get it from the state, how do we decide which religion to represent? If we let them build a new church on the people's land then that would be an affront to all the other religions out there besides that the atheists will feel that it is a waste of the people's land.

Right now the person who wants a piece of land gets the land based on who has the most money but I do not think that will be a very effective way of solving the issue in a communist society so if you can figure out this issue please I am all ears

[Seodanrot]

Ok umm....what public office is there in a Communist society? What separation of Church and State would there be....if there is NO state? Unless you mean that when a small community gets together to decide something suddenly a religious person loses some of his rights? of course I don't think you mean that ;) but I'm just pointing out...your separation of church and state thing doesn't work. Two wrongs don't make a right Seo...... and as you talk about this oppressed thing...I see you are speaking of "Christianity" and yes...there was oppression...but the goal of Communism is the END of oppression...not the new redistribution of it.

Umm duh Communism is the state runs by the people for the people and it promotes equality and freedom. But in order to have this freedom we must get rid of the instantiates that are controlling (religious Dogma that premotes fear) and try to eliminated people's freedom. So what's really your point?

[thinkerOFthoughts]

Umm duh Communism is the state runs by the people for the people and it promotes equality and freedom. But in order to have this freedom we must get rid of the instantiates that are controlling (religious Dogma that premotes fear) and try to eliminated people's freedom. So what's really your point?
THERE IS NO STATE!! my point is there is NOT STATE to separate the Church from. Dogma that promotes fear? people even today for the most part have ABSOLUTE freedom to choose if they are going to believe in some religion or "dogma of fear" like you for instance...you are rid of such things. Even in a communist society religion and beliefs are chosen if not FORCED then religion has no way of being "evil" or controlling.

[Seodanrot]

THERE IS NO STATE!! my point is there is NOT STATE to separate the Church from. Dogma that promotes fear?

You are taking about Anarchy not Communism so don't try to tell me there is no state THE PEOPLE make up the state in Communism. And yes Dogma that promotes fear like the fear of hell from the idoitlogies of original sin/debt it uses made of fear to convert and to control those who buy into that bullshit it's a threat to freedom to all even yourself.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

You are taking about Anarchy not Communism so don't try to tell me there is no state the people make up the state in Communism. And yes Dogma that promotes fear like the fear of hell from the idoitlogies of original sin/debt it uses made of fear to convert and to control those who buy into that bullshit it's a threat to freedom to all even yourself.
Hows it a threat to freedom if you FREELY choose to believe it? answer me that.

[Seodanrot]

Hows it a threat to freedom if you FREELY choose to believe it? answer me that.

Hmm what about indoctrination or brainwashing has that crossed your mind? If you are raised in that dumb dogma and isolated from other thoughts how is that freedom? How do you have the choose to pick and choose if the choose was made for you when you were young and ignorant? How is that for an answer.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

Hmm what about indoctrination or brainwashing has that crossed your mind? If you are raised in that dumb dogma and isolated from other thoughts how is that freedom? How do you have the choose to pick and choose if the choose was made for you when you were young and ignorant? How is that for an answer.

Listen the thing I am trying to get across is that religion can co-exist with a Communist society. Really this indoctrination thing is all up to the family. You cant just "ban" religion because then you lose that "free" part of society you are looking for. I don't know how to regulate "indoctrination" by parents into a religion, but its something that can be thought of.

[Seodanrot]

Listen the thing I am trying to get across is that religion can co-exist with a Communist society. Really this indoctrination thing is all up to the family. You cant just "ban" religion because then you lose that "free" part of society you are looking for. I don't know how to regulate "indoctrination" by parents into a religion, but its something that can be thought of.

Listen Comrade I know you mean well and I don't want you to think that I want the religion to be ban that's not it at all the entire point I was trying to get off here was I don't think religious ideologies belong in the law making process it is fine to have your own personal beliefs and should but it doesn't belong in public office it will create problems for everyone.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

Listen Comrade I know you mean well and I don't want you to think that I want the religion to be ban that's not it at all the entire point I was trying to get off here was I don't think religious ideologies belong in the law making process it is fine to have your own personal beliefs and should but it doesn't belong in public office it will create problems for everyone.
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh now our mis-understandings are understood :lol: sorry for arguing lol I of course agree with this statement.....I guess...I got confused for a little while there ay?:blushing:

[Seodanrot]

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh now our mis-understandings are understood :lol: sorry for arguing lol I of course agree with this statement.....I guess...I got confused for a little while there ay?:blushing:

It's ok Comrade this happens. We both want freedom to is the main goal here I don't take offense to any of this. Somethings get taken out of context this unfortunately happens a lot in text forums. But through the discourse of discussion things become more and more clearer.

[rosie]

science and religion have very specific contradictions. The use of religion by the capitalist masters have always been used as a form of social control. Before capitalism, it was used as social control (during the monarchy) and even before then. In a communist society, scientific reason IS the way of human progress...not a bible or any other religious reading material. Good question!

[Seodanrot]

science and religion have very specific contradictions. The use of religion by the capitalist masters have always been used as a form of social control. Before capitalism, it was used as social control (during the monarchy) and even before then. In a communist society, scientific reason IS the way of human progress...not a bible or any other religious reading material. Good question!

I couldn't agree more well done. ;)

[BabylonHoruv]

I don't know about you comrade but I really hate it when one of those christian nutcases comes to my door early in the morning on my days off trying to preach their evil book as the "Good news" when clearly it's not. I do think that we can all do with less of that bullshit to be quite honest preaching should stay within their own temples/churches not people's doors and certainly not on t.v. Which to me when I see some of these nutcases trying sell something they claim as holy or a miracle make item I see a scam and these people belong behind bars yet in today society that can get away with ripping people off by taking advantage of their faith. It all either needs to by stopped or they need to be watch and regulated like the big corrupt corporations in the world for unfair tactics.


We can learn a lot from the evangelists. their tactics can be very effective and if we used them to spread Anarchism or Communism we might gain a lot more sympathy for them.

I cannot see them being stopped without an oppressive government that I would personally pledge my efforts to overthrowing. If that means that I am working with Christian fundamentalists, well, that's no worse than working with Stalinists.

[CommunityBeliever]

science and religion have very specific contradictions. The use of religion by the capitalist masters have always been used as a form of social control. Before capitalism, it was used as social control (during the monarchy) and even before then.

I couldn't agree more.


In a communist society, scientific reason IS the way of human progress...not a bible or any other religious reading material.

Isn't the small amount of progress in capitalist society the result of scientific reason too? Last I checked most of the progress has come from scientific reason in the small amount of institutions that are funded by the government such as NOAA, NASA, and developers at universities. Of course, there will be more progress in communist society.

[9]

They don't need to be oppressed but they really don't belong on the political table or the law making process even tho it would be fair to oppress them seeing how they have oppressed societies for many years.

Yes, and by this logic, it is fair for Israel to oppress the Palestinians because Jews have been oppressed by societies for many years :rolleyes:

Because a group has been oppressed in the past does not make it fair for that group to oppress others in the future. If anything, said group should be less willing to engage in oppression of others as a result of its own experience as victims of oppression. Granted, this is often not the way things transpire in "real life", which is a shame.

[mel]

Listen Comrade I know you mean well and I don't want you to think that I want the religion to be ban that's not it at all the entire point I was trying to get off here was I don't think religious ideologies belong in the law making process it is fine to have your own personal beliefs and should but it doesn't belong in public office it will create problems for everyone.

The point of this is that in most systems proposed for how a communist government would operate and make decisions, there is no potential for a larger group such as a corporation or religious institution to "buy" a politician or any other such nonsense.

Inherent in the abolition of private property, class rule, and markets there is also a complete abolition of the market in which laws are bought and sold. You cannot (and should not) stop religious individuals from having their say in the law-making process, and in the absence of a market on which laws can be bought and sold, you eliminate the ability for religious institutions to have their say.

In communism, it would be impossible for a company or a religious institution to have a say in politics except by way of its constituent parts: the workers and members of its group. Those individuals will always have a more diverse selection of opinions on each and every matter presented before them than the on-paper opinion of that larger group, and as such the laws will be decided upon by people alone. This requires no more special action on the part of communists beyond the class struggle itself, which should be the most immediate goal of any revolutionary group.

In other words: let the religious believe whatever the fuck they want, it does not always influence their political positions (the existence of christian communists on this board a testament to that) and I imagine would do so far less in a post-revolutionary society than it does now, when everything is commercialized and politicized for the gain of those in positions of power.

[Seodanrot]

Yes, and by this logic, it is fair for Israel to oppress the Palestinians because Jews have been oppressed by societies for many years :rolleyes:

Because a group has been oppressed in the past does not make it fair for that group to oppress others in the future. If anything, said group should be less willing to engage in oppression of others as a result of its own experience as victims of oppression. Granted, this is often not the way things transpire in "real life", which is a shame.

It was a joke I didn't mean that they would be oppressed or should I was just stating as a joke that it would be a little funny to turn the tables on them not that I want that or wish it.

[Seodanrot]

In other words: let the religious believe whatever the fuck they want, it does not always influence their political positions .

Actually it does and it has effected the law making process the Christan Right-wing fucktards made gay marriage banned and illegal in California because it's offensive to their dumb faith yet it's non of their business what people do in there own private time or what they do behind close doors.
So yes they do try to influence their own religious ideas in politics don't try to tell me otherwise.

[Seodanrot]

In other words: let the religious believe whatever the fuck they want

I don't care what they believe they can be free to believe anything they want but the beliefs need to stay on the personal level and not be brought forth to the political table ok because once you bring it into politics people in soceity are going to get fucked over because something like Christian law will either have some sort of crazy punishment system or you can expect people rights and freedoms taken away from them because it doesn't fit the faith how is that fair?

[Seodanrot]

We can learn a lot from the evangelists. their tactics can be very effective and if we used them to spread Anarchism or Communism we might gain a lot more sympathy for them.

I cannot see them being stopped without an oppressive government that I would personally pledge my efforts to overthrowing. If that means that I am working with Christian fundamentalists, well, that's no worse than working with Stalinists.

I agree their tactics maybe useful for spending the influence of communism.:thumbup1: Good call.

[mel]

Actually it does and it has effected the law making process the Christan Right-wing fucktards made gay marriage banned and illegal in California because it's offensive to their dumb faith yet it's non of their business what people do in there own private time or what they do behind close doors.
So yes they do try to influence their own religious ideas in politics don't try to tell me otherwise.

You're misinterpreting what I said, deliberately or through misunderstanding.

What I said was that a person's FAITH does not always influence their POLITICAL OPINIONS. I know christians who are for gay marriage, and I know christians who are not. I know christians who are for the death penalty and I know christians who are not. I know christians who are communists and I know christians who are not. Do you see where I'm going with this? Having a particular religious belief does not tie you indefinitely into one political arena or another. I'll give you another tidbit: dogmatic acceptance of attitudes expressed in religious texts is a minority position: of the some-odd 89% of people in the US that identify as christians a vanishingly small number of them are against some things which are explicitly condemned in the Bible, like premarital sex (a basic look at the number of teenagers who have sex before high school ends vs. the number of teenagers who identify as christians is a clear indication of this).

A very small but VERY vocal minority of christians have a dogmatic acceptance of absolutely every tenet expressed in the Bible, and they have undue influence in the political sphere right now for a variety of complex reasons, but their position is, absolutely, that of a vocal but powerful minority.

The point is that a person's faith does not necessarily influence their political beliefs, but of course it can. I think you need to face the fact that, although it is entirely wrong, alternative sexualities are just now beginning to enter the mainstream and many people, irrespective of the degree to which they are religious, find homosexuality to be something "icky" which weirds them out. This is a reaction to anything unknown and all types of perceived "sexual deviancy" and is largely a symptom of an older generation who has not grown up in a time where sexuality was extremely taboo. In a few generations time, the overall attitude towards "alternative" sexualities will most likely be one of acceptance, though obviously that will not be universal and people who are not accepting of alternative sexualities will be looked upon as overt racists are today: with scorn. That is not to say that the problems of racism have been solved, nor that the problems of sexual discrimination, but that the overtly racist and overtly homophobic will be less socially accepted and relegated to minority status in the political sphere.

On the issue of gay marriage, sexuality will not be politicized in a socialist society and marriage, homosexual or heterosexual will not be a political issue. The major reason that marriage needs to be recognized by law in a capitalist society is for purposes of inheritance and other transferrence of property which will not exist in a socialist society. In a socialist society, the only legitimate reason for unions to be legislated is for decision making purposes, like when a person should be taken off of life support, in which a person with whom the person in a coma was in a long-term relationship with ought to have a say in that type of decision. Ultimately, if the individual in question has some type of "marriage" they can replace the state marriage license with a simple, optional contract which they can design the terms of and sign when they get "married", but it will not be a requirement for couples (or groups, as the case may be) making a public announcement of their commitment to one another.

[Seodanrot]

You're misinterpreting what I said, deliberately or through misunderstanding.

What I said was that a person's FAITH does not always influence their POLITICAL OPINIONS. I know christians who are for gay marriage, and I know christians who are not. I know christians who are for the death penalty and I know christians who are not. I know christians who are communists and I know christians who are not. Do you see where I'm going with this? Having a particular religious belief does not tie you indefinitely into one political arena or another. I'll give you another tidbit: dogmatic acceptance of attitudes expressed in religious texts is a minority position: of the some-odd 89% of people in the US that identify as christians a vanishingly small number of them are against some things which are explicitly condemned in the Bible, like premarital sex (a basic look at the number of teenagers who have sex before high school ends vs. the number of teenagers who identify as christians is a clear indication of this).

A very small but VERY vocal minority of christians have a dogmatic acceptance of absolutely every tenet expressed in the Bible, and they have undue influence in the political sphere right now for a variety of complex reasons, but their position is, absolutely, that of a vocal but powerful minority.

The point is that a person's faith does not necessarily influence their political beliefs, but of course it can. I think you need to face the fact that, although it is entirely wrong, alternative sexualities are just now beginning to enter the mainstream and many people, irrespective of the degree to which they are religious, find homosexuality to be something "icky" which weirds them out. This is a reaction to anything unknown and all types of perceived "sexual deviancy" and is largely a symptom of an older generation who has not grown up in a time where sexuality was extremely taboo. In a few generations time, the overall attitude towards "alternative" sexualities will most likely be one of acceptance, though obviously that will not be universal and people who are not accepting of alternative sexualities will be looked upon as overt racists are today: with scorn. That is not to say that the problems of racism have been solved, nor that the problems of sexual discrimination, but that the overtly racist and overtly homophobic will be less socially accepted and relegated to minority status in the political sphere.

On the issue of gay marriage, sexuality will not be politicized in a socialist society and marriage, homosexual or heterosexual will not be a political issue. The major reason that marriage needs to be recognized by law in a capitalist society is for purposes of inheritance and other transferrence of property which will not exist in a socialist society. In a socialist society, the only legitimate reason for unions to be legislated is for decision making purposes, like when a person should be taken off of life support, in which a person with whom the person in a coma was in a long-term relationship with ought to have a say in that type of decision. Ultimately, if the individual in question has some type of "marriage" they can replace the state marriage license with a simple, optional contract which they can design the terms of and sign when they get "married", but it will not be a requirement for couples (or groups, as the case may be) making a public announcement of their commitment to one another.

Thank you for clarifying your statement.

[CommunityBeliever]

I know christians who are for gay marriage

Those would be those christains that do not believe in the bible because it says "if a man sleeps with another man put him to death" Christainity hates gays.


I know christians who are for the death penalty

Well the bible clearly says that the death penalty should be given to a lot of different groups of people like GAYS so if they believe in the bible then they will believe in the death penalty.


Having a particular religious belief does not tie you indefinitely into one political arena or another.

True some people do not have the time to read the bible or care about Church doctrine but if you look at how many people get tied into a particular political arena because of religion it is quite frightening.

There isn't seperation of church and state in many of the countries of the world and in those cases Religion clearly negatively effects people's political opinions and in those places of the world if you are gay then get out as quick as possible.

[mel]

Those would be those christains that do not believe in the bible because it says "if a man sleeps with another man put him to death" Christainity hates gays.

In leviticus, within a breath of another verse that says you will be punished if you cut your sideburns. There are some Christians who are not dogmatically tied to a set of instructions that are no longer appropriate for modern society and instead have a set of reasonable beliefs which they follow because in some way it benefits them.


Well the bible clearly says that the death penalty should be given to a lot of different groups of people like GAYS so if they believe in the bible then they will believe in the death penalty.

Who says that every christian has to believe 100% of what is contained in a millenia-old book that describes a list of rules that are inappropriate to modern existence. The new testament says: "Love the lord your god with all your heart, soul, and mind" and "Love your neighbor as yourself" two ideas which are very much compatible with a communist political position. Jesus Christ never took a position on homosexuality, but some of his disciples did after he left earth, and if their positions are found to be reactionary they do not have to be accepted. Jesus had two commandments, and they're stated above, and a person can call themselves a christian if they endeavor to follow those, in accordance with the actions of Jesus Christ.


True some people do not have the time to read the bible or care about Church doctrine but if you look at how many people get tied into a particular political arena because of religion it is quite frightening.

There isn't seperation of church and state in many of the countries of the world and in those cases Religion clearly negatively effects people's political opinions and in those places of the world if you are gay then get out as quick as possible.

And none of those countries are post-revolutionary societies which are built on a political structure that is not conducive to corruption by entities with undue amounts of economic power because right now, the world still runs on money. As such, they cannot be used as examples. Separation of Church and State is a given in a communist society, because quite frankly, there is no means by which the church can exercise influence over the state when it lacks institutional power and the necessary economic infrastructure.

[CommunityBeliever]

Who says that every christian has to believe 100% of what is contained in a millenia-old book that describes a list of rules that are inappropriate to modern existence.

Christains say that you have to believe that stupid book. I don't believe it though.


Jesus Christ never took a position on homosexuality

There is no evidence Jesus Christ is a real person but apparently you are assuming he is. Are you a christain? You really sound like you are a christain if so you are just going to have to tolerate that a lot of us on this website are atheists and some of us here think that we should actively fight to get rid of religion from the world.

[CommunityBeliever]

Jesus had two commandments, and they're stated above, and a person can call themselves a christian if they endeavor to follow those, in accordance with the actions of Jesus Christ.

I can argue with you and explain why you should not be a christain but I won't bother just get that I am an atheist and please do not push your religion on other people in this forum.

Also please do not build your huge expensive buildings on the people's land. Your churches are not only an affront to all the other million religions that human beings designed but they are also a waste of land in the mind of atheists like much of this forum.

If you want to get into a debate about why you think people should be able to build Churches in a communist society explain how you decide to prefer the Christain religion over the other million religions and why not to give the land to an atheist instead. If you want to discuss something by all means discuss that but do not push your Christain dogma on other people.

[Seodanrot]

Christians say that you have to believe that stupid book. I don't believe it though.



There is no evidence Jesus Christ is a real person but apparently you are assuming he is. Are you a christian? You really sound like you are a christian if so you are just going to have to tolerate that a lot of us on this website are atheists and some of us here think that we should actively fight to get rid of religion from the world.

I do not wish to rid them from the world I just don't want them putting there religious dogma garbage in the law making process. What they believe in and shit is fine but they need to keep it to their self and to their like minded folks but never in public office.

[CommunityBeliever]

I do not wish to rid them from the world I just don't want them putting there religious dogma garbage in the law making process. What they believe in and shit is fine but they need to keep it to their self and to their like minded folks but never in public office.

I agree :thumbup1: but apparently melbicimni does not agree because he thinks they should still be able to build Churches on the people's land and that means you are going to have to take favoritism on one religion instead of another which doesn't work for me and that does not seem to seperate Churches from the state.

[mel]

Christains say that you have to believe that stupid book. I don't believe it though.

Correction some Christians say that you have to dogmatically believe absolutely everything in "that stupid book". Others, as I have pointed out, do not.


There is no evidence Jesus Christ is a real person but apparently you are assuming he is. Are you a christain? You really sound like you are a christain if so you are just going to have to tolerate that a lot of us on this website are atheists and some of us here think that we should actively fight to get rid of religion from the world.

No, but I'm tired of anti-theists spouting dogmatic garbage and making baseless generalizations about entire groups of people that they do not understand the makeup of.


I can argue with you and explain why you should not be a christain but I won't bother just get that I am an atheist and please do not push your religion on other people in this forum.

I am not pushing any religion that I don't belong to on anybody.


Also please do not build your huge expensive buildings on the people's land. Your churches are not only an affront to all the other million religions that human beings designed but they are also a waste of land in the mind of atheists like much of this forum.

Churches can be used as much more than just a weekly meeting place for Christians (you don't seem to be nearly as dogmatically opposed to Mosques, buddhist temples, or any other places of worship, I wonder why that is) but as community centers open to anybody that wants to use its facilities. All Christians want is to meet in peace, and I don't see why they should be precluded from finding a building that meets the needs for the size of that group.


If you want to get into a debate about why you think people should be able to build Churches in a communist society explain how you decide to prefer the Christain religion over the other million religions and why not to give the land to an atheist instead. If you want to discuss something by all means discuss that but do not push your Christain dogma on other people.

A church can be used as a place of worship for people of any faith, as it is nothing more than a community building. However if a group is already using a building as a church at the time of the revolution, they should be given preference to continue to use it after the revolution at the times they use it for. At all other times it should be open to anybody else for any person for whatever purpose they wish. A church makes a great center for all sorts of gatherings, and older, ornate churches should not be destroyed because they retain historical and artistic value in the religious imagery, and should be preserved as such. Newer churches should probably not have permanent stained-glass windows with religious inscriptions or sayings on them (but most newly built churches do not anyway) and will be suitable as a secular meeting place when church is not in session.


I do not wish to rid them from the world I just don't want them putting there religious dogma garbage in the law making process. What they believe in and shit is fine but they need to keep it to their self and to their like minded folks but never in public office.

How do you propose that they will do that in a communist society? There should be no permanent positions of "public office", and without economic influence, how do you propose that an institution influence the creation of laws. I have already established that individual members of any religion have diverse beliefs and opinions, and there is an EXTREMELY VOCAL minority which has UNDUE POLITICAL POWER, mostly due to TRADITION and ECONOMIC INFLUENCE that allows them to dictate law in a fashion which would be IMPOSSIBLE in a communist society. There are people who are not religious who will vote for things you find reprehensible, and there are religious people who would agree with you. A religious person should not be denied a vote, but a no individual person would be able to enact legislation WITHOUT POPULAR SUPPORT, and a religious institution would not have ECONOMIC INFLUENCE over legislative bodies due to the abolition of the market forces which make this possible under capitalism.

[x359594]

Religion has been full of contradictions. At certain points in history it's been progressive, at other times it was regressive. Its internal contradictions will ultimately lead to its reduction as a social force.

It seems to me that in a communist society, shorn of its institutional support, religion will only occupy a place in the private life of such individuals who continue to find it meaningful. Thus, religious gatherings will have the character of a meeting of a chess club or great books discussion group.

Very likely it will take one or two generations for religion to be reduced to this status, and in the interim the wisest course would be to treat religious institutions including their real property, their educational centers, their art works and antiquities as public property on loan to believers until their numbers have diminished to the point where the community can step in use these facilities and possessions for the public good.

[mel]

It seems to me that in a communist society, shorn of its institutional support, religion will only occupy a place in the private life of such individuals who continue to find it meaningful. Thus, religious gatherings will have the character of a meeting of a chess club or great books discussion group.

And I see no reason that they cannot continue to have these gatherings in the churches which they have been using, or why other people cannot use the churches as meeting places when the church is not in session.


Very likely it will take one or two generations for religion to be reduced to this status, and in the interim the wisest course would be to treat religious institutions including their real property, their educational centers, their art works and antiquities as public property on loan to believers until their numbers have diminished to the point where the community can step in use these facilities and possessions for the public good.

Or they are all public property, like everything else is after property has been abolished, and who can use it is determined by use and occupancy. If a church is empty at a given time it can be used for meetings, this includes meetings for religous purposes by members of that church, or meetings for nonreligious purposes by non-members of that church. So long as it is being used, it does not matter by whom. So long as it is empty, it is open for whoever can use that space. Why should things be more complicated than this?

[x359594]

...I see no reason that they cannot continue to have these gatherings in the churches which they have been using, or why other people cannot use the churches as meeting places when the church is not in session.

Neither do I.




...Why should things be more complicated than this?

I'm guessing that there will be some initial resistance on the part of believers in the immediate aftermath of communism. These people will very likely have a proprietary interest in the exclusive use of their former property and oppose public use of said property, that's why I suggested that a good policy would be to let them use it as before until their numbers dwindle, at which time they'll have to peaceably yield to the commonweal interests of the people.

The alternative is force, and with force comes bloodshed, martyrs, resolve to maintain faith no matter what the cost, etc. Of course this is only speculation, and your speculation is as good as mine. In fact, your speculation is preferable to mine, but I think my scenario is one possible response among many.

[mel]

Neither do I.

I guess we agree then :-)


No reason at all. Did I say otherwise? I'm in complete agreement with you.

You seemed to be saying something different about the nature of the property, I think it was your language about "loans" that confused me. It seemed to imply some sort of central authority, rather than just adhering to the same principles of use and occupancy that apply to all other public space after the revolution.

[CommunityBeliever]

(you don't seem to be nearly as dogmatically opposed to Mosques, buddhist temples, or any other places of worship, I wonder why that is)

I am just saying that I will treat all religions equally and I will treat Atheism equally to religion too.


However if a group is already using a building as a church at the time of the revolution, they should be given preference to continue to use it after the revolution at the times they use it for.

Yes I said I am not interested in shutting down what you are doing now I just won't let you expand your own religion well denying all other religions and atheism itself. It seems reasonable to me.


Newer churches should probably not have permanent stained-glass windows with religious inscriptions or sayings on them (but most newly built churches do not anyway) and will be suitable as a secular meeting place when church is not in session.

Okay I agree :thumbup1: but you cannot say that the Christains have instant priority for meeting there and you probably should think of a different name then a Church. And ya you have to get rid of all those religious inscriptions because if a Muslim was using it then he might get real mad.

[mel]

I am just saying that I will treat all religions equally and I will treat Atheism equally to religion too.

So will I. Churches which are currently using a space at a given time should be allowed to continue to use that space at that time.


Yes I said I am not interested in shutting down what you are doing now I just won't let you expand your own religion well denying all other religions and atheism itself. It seems reasonable to me.

If a church outgrows their current meeting place, they should be allowed to commission another one if no space is vacant in which they can otherwise meet. I think that it's reasonable to expect that if a new building is commissioned that it not be emblazened with religious inscriptions because it should be suitable for secular meetings as well.


Okay I agree :thumbup1: but you cannot say that the Christains have instant priority for meeting there and you probably should think of a different name then a Church. And ya you have to get rid of all those religious inscriptions because if a Muslim was using it then he might get real mad.

If Christians commission the building, they should have first pick at which times they need to use it. If it is a building in use by another group first, then they are at the mercy for meeting locations of that group. ALL Christians do not instantly have priority of any building, but christians (or muslims, or buddhists, or atheists) already using a building have priority for time slots.

I don't agree that all buildings that currently exist should have their religious character removed from them. There are buildings of a religious nature with IMMENSE historical and artistic value, and these should not be bulldozed or redesigned, but preserved despite their inherently religious character. Perhaps they can be repurposed as museums instead of places of religious gatherings, that way the group that originally designed it is not the only one who wishes to meet there, so long as ornate churches with stained glass windows are not destroyed.

[CommunityBeliever]

Well if you are building a new building then you can call it a "Community Center" instead of a Church. Community Centers will not have any religious connotations and they will have meeting schedules that work best for everybody. Some old Churches/Mosques might be turned into Community Centers also and some might stay in place with their religious connotations. New Churches will not be built.

If the revolution is still going on we might not let Christains meet in Community Centers to take priority for the revolution.

[mel]

Well if you are building a new building then you can call it a "Community Center" instead of a Church. Community Centers will not have any religious connotations and they will have meeting schedules that work best for everybody. Some old Churches/Mosques might be turned into Community Centers also and some might stay in place with their religious connotations. New Churches will not be built.

I don't care what you call it, "the church" is a group of people, not a building, and if a group of members of a certain religion go to the community and say "we have outgrown our meeting place, we need a larger one" they should be allowed to build one.


If the revolution is still going on we might not let Christains meet in Community Centers to take priority for the revolution.

The question of what to do in a revolution is a complex one that can really not be known until the conditions of that revolution are known. If the religious are by and large revolutionary allies then they may and should be allowed to meet. We won't really know what the revolutionary conditions will be, how many religious people there will be, and if they will be a reactionary force until the time comes. If revolutionaries need to meet in a church on a sunday morning they should be given priority over the church in that instance, though those kinds of things are really very speculative and we definitely can't know what churches may need to be used for in a period of revolution.

You should know though that if the religious feel persecuted, they will likely become a counter-revolutionary force as they feel they are losing their freedom, and if by allowing religious people to meet they become allies then it is perhaps in our best interest to allow them their meetings than to make yet another enemy of the struggle.

[CommunityBeliever]

The question of what to do in a revolution is a complex one that can really not be known until the conditions of that revolution are known. If the religious are by and large revolutionary allies then they may and should be allowed to meet. We won't really know what the revolutionary conditions will be, how many religious people there will be, and if they will be a reactionary force until the time comes. If revolutionaries need to meet in a church on a sunday morning they should be given priority over the church in that instance, though those kinds of things are really very speculative and we definitely can't know what churches may need to be used for in a period of revolution.

True it was just that some people mentioned the idea on page one of using Community Centers and I am saying it might be done but we don't know so ya who cares, peace.:thumbup1:

[BabylonHoruv]

Those would be those christains that do not believe in the bible because it says "if a man sleeps with another man put him to death" Christainity hates gays.



Well the bible clearly says that the death penalty should be given to a lot of different groups of people like GAYS so if they believe in the bible then they will believe in the death penalty.



True some people do not have the time to read the bible or care about Church doctrine but if you look at how many people get tied into a particular political arena because of religion it is quite frightening.

There isn't seperation of church and state in many of the countries of the world and in those cases Religion clearly negatively effects people's political opinions and in those places of the world if you are gay then get out as quick as possible.


Anyone using the parts about stoning gays to death as a reason to oppose gay marriage is a fool, they are in the same book where it says that if you touch a woman who is menstruating you must go through a ritual cleansing (and it is clear that they do not mean have carnal relations with, they mean something as light as shaking hands) the same book where they put forth which sacrifices are required when a woman gives birth, and the same book where they put forth several other stonable offenses, among them uttering the name Jehovah.

Many Christians follow the words of Christ who was very clear about caring for the poor and your fellow man. He was also clear that those in groups you consider "evil" are often better than those you consider good, the good samaritan is an example of this although people do not understand it any longer as we don't know what a Samaritan is. Adultery was also a stonable offense and Christ specifically stopped the stoning of a woman who had committed adultery, I am fairly certain he would have done the same for a gay man or a lesbian, he doesn't address the issue anywhere and all the justification for Christians hating them come from either Paul or the old testament.

The religious should, in my opinion, be treated like anyone else. Not prohibited from taking part in decision making, allowed to form groups and gather for meetings (which is what a church is, at the root) and also not given any special protections that are not available to other groups and individuals.

Yes, there has been a lot of oppression by the church throughout history, there have also been a lot of great things done by it and many who are fighting in the third world to end oppression do it because of their religious convictions.

[BabylonHoruv]

I am just saying that I will treat all religions equally and I will treat Atheism equally to religion too.



Yes I said I am not interested in shutting down what you are doing now I just won't let you expand your own religion well denying all other religions and atheism itself. It seems reasonable to me.



Okay I agree :thumbup1: but you cannot say that the Christains have instant priority for meeting there and you probably should think of a different name then a Church. And ya you have to get rid of all those religious inscriptions because if a Muslim was using it then he might get real mad.

An atheist might get mad, a Muslim would be unlikely to. Muslims also believe in Jesus Christ, just in a different way than Christians do. I don't see any reason why a church would need to remove religious inscriptions and art, If the Muslims, or the atheists, or the church of the flying spaghetti monster want a place to gather and are unwilling to put up with what someone else has built, they can go and build their own gathering place.

[BabylonHoruv]

Well if you are building a new building then you can call it a "Community Center" instead of a Church. Community Centers will not have any religious connotations and they will have meeting schedules that work best for everybody. Some old Churches/Mosques might be turned into Community Centers also and some might stay in place with their religious connotations. New Churches will not be built.

If the revolution is still going on we might not let Christains meet in Community Centers to take priority for the revolution.


So your religion is more important than their religion? I thought you were opposed to that concept.

[CommunityBeliever]

So your religion is more important than their religion? I thought you were opposed to that concept.

No I am an atheist I do not have a religion and I think all religions are destructive to humanity and I would like to see a purely atheist world. I was just saying temporarily during the revolution we might need to house our troops in Churches because the revolution is more important then a group of christains wasting time.