Religious persecution

[RHIZOMES]

I know most (And some Communists say the ones that aren't are not Marxists) Communists are atheistic, but...

How do you all feel about religious persecution? Be it Russian Orthodox, Coptic Egyptians, Bahais, Muslims, Jews, etc?

Interested in hearing some responses.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 10:55 am
I know most (And some Communists say the ones that aren't are not Marxists) Communists are atheistic, but...

How do you all feel about religious persecution? Be it Russian Orthodox, Coptic Egyptians, Bahais, Muslims, Jews, etc?

Interested in hearing some responses.
I don't think people should be "persecuted" for believing in god, but I think it is necessary to defend ourselves against those individuals or institutions that attempt to convince people that god exists.

[ecoanarchist]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 24, 2007 08:15 am
I don't think people should be "persecuted" for believing in god, but I think it is necessary to defend ourselves against those individuals or institutions that attempt to convince people that god exists.
Or encroach upon our rights and liberties because of something they believe in, let alone cant prove.

[The-Spark]

I believe that religion becomes a problem when they try to oppress their beliefs on others because they think their god is the one and true god, so truly being atheism for me is a rebellion against religion, not spirituality. Because people should believe what they want, yet who are others to speak for god? if god is even real. Plus institutions like the church has made alota money off faith, like the sales of the bible, the highest sold book in the entire world.

[Vargha Poralli]

How do you all feel about religious persecution? Be it Russian Orthodox, Coptic Egyptians, Bahais, Muslims, Jews, etc?

religious persecution happens only to a minority group and it will be executed by the ruling clique of the Majorities. It is just a distraction which is used to divert the common people's attention from the real matters. Communists should oppose any type of persecution against the minorities - including religious ones.

Being an atheists should not be given as an excuse to stay away from defending the rights of religious minorities.

[The-Spark]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 03:46 pm


religious persecution happens only to a minority group
That is not true, the arabs persecute the jews, the jews the christians, the christians the arabs, and the arabs the christians and so on. The nazis persucuted the jews and the jews were not a minority in the world at all. Religions persecute other religions, big or small. Except for buddhists.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by The-Spark+July 24, 2007 09:34 pm--> (The-Spark @ July 24, 2007 09:34 pm)
[email protected] 24, 2007 03:46 pm


religious persecution happens only to a minority group
That is not true, the arabs persecute the jews, the jews the christians, the christians the arabs, and the arabs the christians and so on. The nazis persucuted the jews and the jews were not a minority in the world at all. Religions persecute other religions, big or small. [/b]
I don't know how your point contradicts me.

For example in India muslims and Christians are persecuted by Sangh parivar. Here the the former two are minority and the Hindus form a majority. In pakistan and Bangladesh the reverse happens Hindus are persecuted.

Shia Muslims are persecuted in Saudi Arabia - a Sunni stronghold. Same way Sunnis,Sufism and bahai faith followers are persecuted in Iran - where the majority of ruling class comes from Shia sect.

And I am not saying each and every people from the majority reliion persecute the minorities - the top layes or the ruling class does it to divert attention from other problems.


Except for buddhists.

I think you don't know a country called Sri Lanka. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_July)

[The-Spark]

O my bad :)

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by The-[email protected] 24, 2007 03:19 pm
I believe that religion becomes a problem when they try to oppress their beliefs on others because they think their god is the one and true god, so truly being atheism for me is a rebellion against religion, not spirituality. Because people should believe what they want, yet who are others to speak for god? if god is even real. Plus institutions like the church has made alota money off faith, like the sales of the bible, the highest sold book in the entire world.
That wasn't what I was asking. I'm not asking about your personal views of religion, I'm asking you about persecution/discrimination against religious groups. Since it seemed notably absent from the description of this particular forum. =P

And I believe you're assuming that I'm talking exclusively about Christians, and not non-Christians who are persecuted for nothing being Christians as well.

[MarxSchmarx]

Except for buddhists.

They were, at the very least, complicit in driving Christianity underground in early modern Japan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_o...cution_in_Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians#Persecution_in_Japan).

Also we've had threads implicating other schools of Buddhism in oppression:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36770

[Faux Real]

Only fascists and the bourgeoisie should be persecuted. Well, maybe a few religious extremists that are a danger.

My reaction to persecution based on religion is basically the same that goes for anyone who is persecuted because of their ethnicity, social status, sex, or gender. People need to see through the petty material differences and become aware of the commonality that binds us. Unfortunately reactionaries don't, and it's a damn shame.

[kromando33]

Religion is simply a bourgeois institution which encourages anti-materialist(Marxist) thinking, should we revolutionaries honestly support that?

[jake williams]

The nazis persucuted the jews and the jews were not a minority in the world at all.
Wha? Jews not a minority?

Speaking of the Jews though, the broad impression I get from the history strongly suggests that anti-Semitism is really more of an ethno-cultural-racial kind of thing than about the particular parts of a set of holy texts they subscribe. And this theme, further, extends to a whole lot of "religious persecution". Of course, religion itself virtually always correlates with other factors.

This is the problem with talking about "religious persecution". For one thing, the word's used to mean all different kinds of things, from rounding up people and executing them to not letting kids bring knives to school or publicly declare their hatred for homosexuals. Also, a lot of types of what's called "religious persecution" is obviously irrational and/or horrible.

But we need to look at the specifics of the case. Look. If you have a set of beliefs, and these beliefs will cause you do to something horrible, and others have other beliefs, and these will not cause them to do something horrible,, then you should be restricted, somehow, in your capacity to act. Now it just happens that it certainly appears this need not, or for circumstantial reasons should not (i.e. the total effects would be a net negative), occur, given the characteristics of people and belief.

Also, there's a modern tendency to call not giving people with certain religions special rights "religious persecution", which is just utter nonsense.

About the specific question of "Should we let people follow their religions", that depends entirely what their specific "religion" is. Biblical Christianity/(old Judaism, traditional Hinduism with all that widow-burning nonsense/etc.)? Absolutely not. But these are practices, which is a bit of a different question.

[SouthernBelle82]

Exactly. Like not having same-sex marriage because supposivley it's against the Christian faith (even though Jesus was silent about it). None the less we should still have equal rights no matter what any religion says one way or the other.


Or encroach upon our rights and liberties because of something they believe in, let alone cant prove.

[SouthernBelle82]

I think with the religious extremist's it should only be if they infringe on someone else's rights such abuse for example.


Only fascists and the bourgeoisie should be persecuted. Well, maybe a few religious extremists that are a danger.

My reaction to persecution based on religion is basically the same that goes for anyone who is persecuted because of their ethnicity, social status, sex, or gender. People need to see through the petty material differences and become aware of the commonality that binds us. Unfortunately reactionaries don't, and it's a damn shame.

[question_d_authority]

I think it's the religion in the organised and/or institutionalised form that is exploitative. Trying to restrict individuals to follow their own personal and individual belief is itself another form of religious totalitarianism in the name of atheism. It's against freedom.

[Dr Mindbender]

while i find persecution on the basis of religion wrong, what is equally wrong is when religion itself is used as the justification for persecution eg. the israeli onslaught against the palestinians.

[question_d_authority]

why can't we tell that, it's the prsecution that's what is wrong?

[jake williams]

In my opinion this is one of the sickest things I've found picking through various bits of Canadian law (specifically the Canadian Criminal Code; source (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_VIII-gb:s_318//en#anchorbo-ga:l_VIII-gb:s_318)):


Hate Propaganda
...
Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.



Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.




Which is utter nonsense, not just because of the moral implications of considering religious reasons adequate defence of hatred, but because religion really has been a huge historical justification of, if not necessarily cause of, hate and hateful arguments.

[Xiao Banfa]

As long as religious people can accept a secular state and not obstruct progressive laws like the right to abortion etc, they should be welcomed into the socialist movement.

It's impractical to create enemies out of religious people when one doesn't need to.

A lot of people even use religion as a justification for socialism. I think this should be taken advantage of.

[Kitskits]

As I said in previous posts. Religion is idealism. It is used by the bourgeois to control the proletariat and, possibly, even create a theocratic state of fascism to hold the proletariat down.

To me it is simple. Materialism vs Idealism. Kill or die. Because I am constantly misunderstood in subjects like that I mean that the end justifies the means. I support the full extermination of religion and fully support atheism in a socialist state but the methods should not (a) generate violence and pain, b) generate reaction from the right wing). The method I propose is the instant banning of all organized religion and immediate propaganda once-and-for-all against theism, pro-atheism.

Someone who is a theist, could arguably be close to socialism in his ideology but can NEVER be a materialist.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Religion, yes, is idealist. Religion is a means of repression [of the proletariat]. Following the revolution, I would say religious activity such as churches should be banned. Marriage should only take place through the means of the state, and "preaching in public" should be banned, considering that at that point all property is public property and property of the proletarian state apparatus- and it should not be used for purposes of suppressing the proletariat.

The intention is progress- and religion takes that away and replaces class consciousness with pacifist thought and God-worship. If someone wants to worship, fine, but all religious organization [churches] must be banned- and at the least propaganda needs to be distributed against it - as religion prevents class consciousness and prevents progress towards communism.

And in all regards, no religious faction can be granted more privilege for being such than the proletariat as a whole. It defeats the purpose.

[w0lf]

Fascists should be prosecuted. Not someone who believes theres a god.

[crimsonzephyr]

I am atheist and i don't really think others should believe in a god, but who says I'm right? Everyone can think however and in what ever they want.

Q: Is Buddhism a religion? I mean it is a belief system, i guess, but there is no "god". Buddha isn't viewed as a god.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

There's a difference between organized religion and one's religious beliefs. Organized religion will suppress proletarian revolutionary movement [and it certainly does not bring about class-consciousness]. I am moreso refering to activity [church, religious gatherings, public display of prayer] that impose religion on others. That is different than one's personal view of God. Yes, there should be actions taken by the state [propaganda] to discourage it. Religion turns proletarians into blind sheep and that of which cannot be allowed, especially in DotP.