Freedom of Association

[CrazyModerate]

Do communists repsect this right which is defended in the constitutions of the United States and Canada? I am sure most suport the concept of protests, unions, grass roots democratics assemblies and the like, but do you support religous gathering? I'm not talking about forced religous gathering. I am talking about consenting adults meeting to discuss their beliefs for whatever reason they feel. Or would communist society discriminate against those who chooes to be religous for whatever reason?

[violencia.Proletariat]

In thier homes. NO KIDS ALLOWED!

[CrazyModerate]

Would you like it if Bush said you were only allowed to discuss communist theory and protest within the confines of your home?

[MysticArcher]

Would you like it if Bush said you were only allowed to discuss communist theory and protest within the confines of your home?

If you're playing the "we're supposed to be better than them" card it's not going to fly.

Not only are we going to do things as bad, but worse. Without harming anyone unless necessary of course.

But demolishing churches and removing religion from the range of acceptable public discourse is a million times worse from the reactionary perspective than any amount of killing we could carry out.

Much worse because since we wouldn't hurt anyone they couldn't even villainize us as "monsters" and so on


Communism, like any progressive idea recurs again and again when material conditions call for it. Religion, once removed from public life, will never return - the material conditions for it are gone. That's why the religious hate communism so much, because it means curtains for them forever.

[Comrade-Z]

Would you like it if Bush said you were only allowed to discuss communist theory and protest within the confines of your home?

No we wouldn't. And we would proceed to defy Bush's laws and/or overthrow the motherfucker. Because "inherent rights" and bourgeois legality mean nothing to materialist thinkers. Rational, far-sighted self-interest is our only criteria for action.


Do communists repsect this right which is defended in the constitutions of the United States and Canada?

Your original question is analogous to someone in the 17th century asking, "Do bourgeois respect the rights of nobles to tax by decree as set down in the royal proclamations of the British and French monarchies?"

Capitalism came about through the suppression of one group's "rights" (the aristocracy's) and the enlargement of another group's "rights" (the capitalist class). Capitalism also came about through bloody revolution against the old order. Do you think communism will be any different?

[LSD]

Consenting adults have the right to meet whenever they chose and to do whatever they chose so long as their actions do not harm anyone else.

Obviously, there must be some restrictions on whether or not children can attend these "meetings" as, when it comes to pre and early adolescents, "consent" is a complicated subject. But, no, a communist society would not have "rules" on assembly.


I am talking about consenting adults meeting to discuss their beliefs for whatever reason they feel. Or would communist society discriminate against those who chooes to be religous for whatever reason?

Communist society would not be a monolithic institution capable of "discriminating" against individuals.

It's highly possible, if not downright likely, that many individuals would look down upon those who chose to "believe" in nonsensical superstitions. Accordingly, many may voice these opinions.

But in terms of organized violent suppression, don't be abusurd; of course no one would stop people from getting together and discussing anything they want.

By this same token, however, there should not be a societal focus on "protecting" religious "freedom" and no one would be compelled to construct special "temples" for the religous to "assemble".

Someone in this thread suggested that they meet in their own homes and that, frankly, sounds like an excellent solution. But if they'd rather meet in some other, available, location and if that meeting did not detrimentally affect anyone outside of this "faith", I seriously doubt that any free society would actually have anything to say.

The best way to let religion die is to grant it the "respect" that it deserves -- namely none. No public religious "policy"; no "suppression" of religion as if it were a serious institution; and no accepted "role" for religion in society.

The anger that many atheists feel in regards to religion is certainly understandable, but we have to be pragmatic on this issue. Despite its origin in bourgeois legalism, the right of people to freely assemble is a fundamental right emergent from basic societal principles of complementary bennefit.

We may not like the things that people want to talk about on their own time, but we have no business in directing their lives.

It's not about being "better" than the bourgeoisie, it's just about constructing a free society. That is, after all, the point of this whole endeavour.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:26 AM
But demolishing churches
Churches are gothically cool, after the revolution we can convert them to concert halls or something productive like that

Like ping-pong

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Permanent Revolution+May 25 2006, 02:57 PM--> (Permanent Revolution @ May 25 2006, 02:57 PM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 06:26 AM
But demolishing churches
Churches are gothically cool, after the revolution we can convert them to concert halls or something productive like that

Like ping-pong [/b]
No, they are monuments to superstition and ignorance and should be demolished in the same fashion that the monuments to capitalism are demolished.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif